Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.apz.19960702
,~.~._'----~---'-"""'" AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1996, 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Colas Investments Conditional Use for ADU & Stream Margin Review, Bob Nevins B. Waterplace Final SPA, Dave Michaelson C. Aspen Mountain PUD, Dave Michaelson IV. ADJOURN ,/ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Rhonda Harris, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: June 27, 1996 July 1.6 - Regular Meeting (4:30 PM) West End Traffic - Biennial Review (Aspen Music Festival) (SC) Small Lodges Text Amendments (DM) Winnerman Stream Margin Review (SW) Work Session - ADU Regulations (DM) 06i26i1996 11:40 FROM THE HUNT FAMILY TRUST TO 9205119 P.01iO4 ROGER H. HUNT Box 39" ASPEN, CoLowwo 81612-3944 OFFICE: U.S.A. 970-925-4.414 FAx: 970-925-4288 26 June 1996 City of Aspen Commissioners, Planning and Zoning Commission, Sara Garton, Chairperson via Amy Schmid, City Clerk for P&Z, Fax 920-5119 Dave Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Fax 920-5119 Stan Clauson, Director, Community Development, Fax 920-5439 Nick Adeh, Director, Public Works, Fax 920-5197 Jack Reid, Superintendent, Streets Department, Fax 920-5015 Subject: United States Postal Service (USPS) change of parking and circulation at the Aspen Post Office (PO) Reference: Truman SPA, Parcel 2 (Truman Parcel 1 is commonly called Clark's Market complex) Dear Addressee: I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen of this community and as a member of the P&Z whose tenure includes the original Truman SPA approval process. On 25 June 1996, 1 spoke with Aspen Postmaster, Tony Natalie, and discovered that USPS engineers have apparently solely and arbitrarily executed a change of parking and circulation surrounding the Aspen Post Office. This change is being accomplished today with little or no regard to the intolerable impacts on congestion, traffic flow, and safety that they will cause upon the businesses and users of the Clark's Market complex and, as well, the users of the Post Office parking. What USPS has done to PO parking and circulation: 1. In the south lot at the neck -down near the southwest corner of the PO building, there are signs erected to prohibit public exit around the west side of the building to Puppy Smith St 2 All vehicles using the south lot and the east lot now must exit through the southeast driveway (heretofore a one-way entrance) and turn left across traffic entering the Clark's parking access road. As well, east lot traffic now must turn left across traffic entering the south lot (southeast driveway). The short distances, short turning radii, narrow driveway width, driveway grade (especially with icy conditions) make the adverse impacts on traffic flow, vehicular safety, and pedestrian safety both intolerable and untenable. 3. There are two octagonal stop signs on each side of the PO northwest driveway 06/26/1996 11:40 FROM THE HUNT FAMILY TRUST TO 9205119 P.02/04 on Puppy Smith Street, within the public right-of-way, and facing out at Puppy Smith Street. believe this constitutes improper use of a traffic control device, and they should be removed immediately. What USPS (engineering) has not done: 1. In my quick scan of neighboring businesses and City staff, USPS has apparently neither solicited nor accepted input from the local community- 2- USPS has apparently ignored the needs and impacts of and on PO users numbering about 10,000 per weekday and the number of vehicles they generate. 3. USPS has apparently ignored that the south lot has inadequate space to accommodate two-way traffic and the turning radii to accommodate 900 double - sided parking. 4.. USPS has apparently ignored the impact of the log jam they will have created in their lots as it spills over to the Clark's lot. 5. USPS has apparently ignored that the exit curb radius of the northwest driveway is non -compliant with the minimum standards (30 ft. radius) for their existing postal transport trucks and fire fighting equipment. I have heard that USPS is considering use of semi -trailers (requiring 45 ft. radius). 6. USPS has apparently ignored the fact that the Post Office must operate in the local community even though as a federal entity, the USPS is allowed to plan and engineer without regard either to the problems it creates or to local input. I will be bringing this matter formally before the Planning and Zoning Commission under Commissioner Comments at our regular meeting on Tuesday 2 July 1996. As I believe this problem needs our immediate attention, I would ask City Staff, if at all possible, to initiate contact with USPS to help solve the problem and avert the impending disaster. Sincere) , ger. H. Hunt cc: Phil Bleomsma, Truman -Aspen Co., Fax 925-8603 Tom Clark, Clark's Market, Fax 925-6852 Vance Grenko, Alpine Ace Hardware, Fax 544-0686 Bob Grueter, Aspen Wine and Spirit, Fax 920-4793 Tony Natalie, Aspen Postmaster, Fax 925-5274 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director j Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director 1 , 1A FROM: Bob Nevins, City Planner RE: Colas Investments Conditional Use Review For Two Accessory Dwelling Units; and Stream Margin Review Parcel I.D. No. 2737-074-00-028 DATE: July 2, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to construct two, detached single-family residences on a vacant 13,155 s.f. lot within the R-6 zone district. As part of the development application, the applicant is requesting: 1) conditional use approval for two, studio accessory dwelling units (ADUs), each containing approximately 390 s.f. of net livable area and; 2) stream margin review approval for the development of two residences within 100 feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. The applicant's submittal packet is attached as Exhibit A. Referrall memorandums from Engineering, Housing and Parks are included as Exhibit B. Sections 26.40.090, Accessory dwelling units; Chapter 26.60, Conditional uses; and Section 26.68.040, Stream margin, of the Land Use Regulations are included as Exhibit C. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for the two studio, accessory dwelling units and the stream margin review for the proposed development with conditions. ICANT: Colas Investments, represented by Mr. Jan Derrington of Cunniffe Architects LOCATION: Parcels A and B, are situated in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 7 and in the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 18, all in Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the sixth principal meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado. The parcels are located off Park Avenue at Regent Street and adjacent to Garrish Park in the City of Aspen. ZONING: Medium -Density Residential (R-6/PUD) LOT SIZE: 13,155 square feet (0.302 acres) PROPOSED LAND USE: Two, detached single-family residences with two accessory dwelling units (ADU's). Two, detached residential dwellings are permitted on lots of 9,000 s.f. or greater within the R-6 zone district. FAR: Two detached residential dwellings on a lot of 9,000 s.f. or greater shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one duplex. Lots 9,000-15,000 s.f. are allowed 4,080 s.f. of allowable floor area, plus 6 s.f. of floor area for each additional 100 s.f. of lot area. Slopes over greater than 30% shall be excluded from calculating allowable floor area. The total reduction in FAR attributable to slope reduction shall not exceed 25%. Based on this criteria, the total allowable FAR for the property is estimated to be approximately 4,132 s.f.. REVIEW PROCESS: Accessory dwelling units require conditional use approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. It is a one-step review and may be consolidated with any other development application. Stream margin review is a one-step process at a meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is not a public hearing and may be consolidated with any other development applications. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Section 26.28.040(B)(3), two detached residential dwellings are a permitted use on a lot 9,000 s.f. or greater within the R-6 zone district. The project has previously been reviewed by the Design Review Architectural Committee (DRAC) November 9, 1995 and May 9, 1996. The Committee's major concerns were: 1) the buildings orientation to the street; 2) the massing and scale within the public viewplane; 3) the setback along Garrish (Wilderness) Park; 4) the "no window" zone; and 5) an interior entrance from the ADU into the living room of the primary residence. The applicant modified the plans in accordance with the DRAC comments and received Staff Residential Design approval on June 17,1996. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The complete memorandums from Engineering, Housing and Parks are included as Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: Conditional Use Review: The purpose of the Medium -Density Residential (R-6) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. The development proposal to construct two detached single-family residences and two, studio accessory dwelling units on the residential lot complies with the intent of the R-6 zone. Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, Standards applicable to all conditional uses, the applicant meets the standards: A) it is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; B) it is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity and surrounding land uses; D) there are adequate public facilities and services to serve the -conditional use; and E) affordable housing is being supplied by the creation of two studio ADU's. 2 The development proposal does not adequately address standards C and F: Standard C. Vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service, delivery, and emergency access have not been fully resolved. The driveway width shown on Sheet A4.2, Unit 1 East Elevation B (see Exhibit A) totals ten feet from the stacked boulders to the edge of the house. With the second floor deck of the ADU overhanging four feet into the driveway, there is only six feet of unobstructed access for delivery, service or emergency vehicles. The proposed deck should be eliminated, relocated or the drive widened to allow service and emergency access to Unit 2. Vehicular access into.the garage of Unit 2 is also very difficult due to the narrowness of the driveway, orientation of the garage, and the locations of the ADU/guest parking spaces. Due to the distance of the proposed residences from the public street and the .local neighborhood conditions, adequate and functional off-street parking needs to be provided. Standard F. The current submittal does not comply with all of the applicable requirements of the land use regulations. The site improvement and topographic surveys are not signed and stamped by a registered land surveyor and they are incomplete (see Engineering memo, Exhibit B). The boulder retaining walls cannot be constructed as shown. A construction easement agreement would need to be obtained from the adjoining property owners in order to retain the five -seven foot cut bank that is indicated on the plans. The existing Bibbig residence encroaches into the access easement. City Code requires that emergency accesses be twenty feet in width. The Fire Marshall should review and approve the driveway access to ensure that the proposed development meets the fire district requirements. The deck of Unit 1. (see Exhibit A, sheet A4.2, Unit 1 East Elevation B) is located 2 1/2 feet from the centerline of the ditch. If this condition is acceptable to the ditch company, written authorization and documentation should be provided to the City. The two, studio ADU's are located above the garages. The units have separate, private, covered exterior entries and decks. The studios each contain approximately 390 s.f. of net livable area. The floor plans show an interior doorway that links the accessory dwelling units to.the living area of the main residence. It is Staff s recommendation that this doorway be eliminated to provide a totally separate living unit from the primary residence. One surface parking space per ADU is indicated on the site plan along with one additional guest space. As discussed above, the current parking layout does not function adequately for resident, service or emergency vehicles. Stream Margin Review: Stream margins are areas located within one hundred feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the. Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one hundred year floodplain where it extends one hundred feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within a flood hazard area (stream margin). Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review 3 shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important features. The property is located within one hundred feet, measured horizontally, from the Roaring Fork River. However, measured vertically, the site is considerably above the river and the flood hazard zone. Pursuant to Section 26.68.040, Stream margin, the development proposal complies with Standards (A) and(B)(1,2,3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,13,and 14). Standards (B)(6 and 8) are not applicable to this application. In evaluating this development proposal, the fifteen foot setback from the top -of -slope and the progressive height limit defined by a forty-five degree angle drawn at ground level from the top -of - slope are the critical stream margin considerations. As shown by the site section (see Exhibit A, sheet A5.1, A- Building Section at Unit 1), the proposed residences are in compliance with these review standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the two studio, accessory dwelling units and the stream margin review with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit to Engineering for review and approval, prior to the issuance of any development orders, the following: a) a complete site improvement and topographic survey prepared pursuant to Colorado state statutes, signed and stamped by a registered land surveyor. b) a construction easement granted by the adjoining property owners to permit the installation of the boulder retaining walls or the submission of a revised site grading plan that does not impact the adjoining properties. c) the Fire Marshall review and approve in writing the proposed access drive and vehicular circulation with respect to emergency access and fire safety. d) the ditch company review and approve in writing, that there is adequate area for them to access and maintain the ditch and whether or not an easement needs to be legally described and recorded on the plat. e) the on -site parking and vehicular access into the garages meet City design standards. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: a) the owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder k Office with proof of recordation submitted to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory units meet the housing guidelines for such M units, meet the definition of Resident Occupied Units, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six (6) months or longer; and b) kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. c) the ADUs shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling units on building permit plans and shall comply with the 1994 U.B.C. sound transmission control guidelines. 0Ta landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. ree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than six inch caliper. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the accessory dwelling units to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 0 No vegetation shall be manipulated outside of the building envelope, and the envelope boundary along the Roaring Fork River shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any building permits. 5 Silt fencing shall be used during construction to prevent runoff from disturbed soils from entering the river. Revegetation is required for any disturbed soil on the site. (65 All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS: Combined development applications requesting conditional use and stream margin review may be considered and approved separately or together. Planning and Zoning Commission may approve the conditions above, approve additional conditions or disapprove the conditional use and stream margin review for the two, detached single- family residences proposed by Colas Investments. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for two' studio, accessory dwelling units and the stream margin review for the two, detached single-family residences proposed on Parcel A, off Park Avenue at Regent Street with the conditions outlined in the Community Development Office Memorandum dated July 2, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Conditional Use and Stream Margin Review Application "B " - Referral Comments "C" - Land Use Code: Section 26.40.090; Chapter 26.60; and Section 26.68.040 5 June 7, 1996 Mr. Stan Clausen Community Development Director CITY OF ASPEN 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: Two detached single family residences for COLAS INVESTMENTS, LLC. Parcel A off Park Avenue at Regent St. Aspen, Colorado Dear Stan, Exhibit A Y; ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS Pursuant to the review and approval of Ordinance 30 design Standards with the DRAC on May 9, 1996, we are submitting herewith on behalf of Colas Investments LLC., the Application for Conditional Use for the ADU (s) and Stream Margin Review. We are aware that the Conditional Use Review requires a Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and will cooperate with you in meeting the required deadlines. We are readily available to review our submission package with you or a designated representative of the Planning Office in a pre -application meeting as suggested in your Standard Application Package. Please let us know if you require any further documentation. Sincerely, Janver Derrington Project Architect t, I CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS e 520 EAST HYMAN - SUITE 301 - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5076 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Colas. Investments, L.L.C. (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Two detached single family residences, Parcel A off Park Avenue at Regent St. Aspen, (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 53 (Series of 1995) establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT . and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional Costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enahle the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in trill prier to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the. processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN Bv: Ai Statf t lausbn Community Development Director 2 APPLICANT COLAS INVESTMENTS, LLC. By. Date: Mailing Address: 9718 1/2 Oak Pass Road Beverly Hills, CA 90210 ATTACIR4ENT 1 LAND USE APP1ZC ON FORM Two detached single family residences 1) Proj ect Name 2) Project Location Parcel A, off Park Avenue at Regent Street, City of Aspen (see attached Exhibits B & C) ( indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning g R- 6 (PUD) 4) Lot Size 13,155 SF (see attached Exhibit E) Colas Investments, Inc. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # 9718 1/2 Oak Pass Road, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 (310) 205-0406 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone Sylvio Tabet c/o Paul Taddune, Attorney 323 West Main St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 .(970) 925-9190 7) Type of Application (please deck all that apply) : X Conditional Use C�tk�ncdal SPA Conceptual His'oric Dev. Special Review FL--ial SPA Final Historic Do,-. 8040 Gre nl.ine Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Day. e X Stream Marcjin Final FUD Historic Demolition Mokmtain View Plane Subdivisicn Historic Des ignation Condcm i n i um i ?a t ion Text/flap Amendment.QQS Allotment otment Lot Split/Lot Line Q� Exemption Adjustment 8) Description of Exi tin Uses (rxmber and type of eD si-i ng * sttactures ; approximate sq. ft.; rIlm�r. of ; any pxiavious approvals granted to the Prcype—rty) - None 9) Description of DevelcPnerit Application Two detached single family residences on a parcel of land fronting on the Roaring Fork River that is accessed via a deeded easement across the residential lot to the east, currently owned by Dieter Biggig. 10) Have you attached the following? yes Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission csion yas-- Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents � ye s Resppo to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application ATTACHMENT 2 . Minimum Submission Contents for All Development Applications' All Development Applications shall include, at a minimum, the following information and materials. 1. The applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a fetter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. (SEE ATTACHED LETTER, LABELED EXHIBIT A) 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to oc cur.SEE ATTACHED WARRANTY DEED/TITLE COMMITMENT, LABELED EXHIBIT B, PAGES 1 AND 2. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current c--rtifi.cate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all. mortgages, judgments, liens, easements,' contracts and agreements affecting -the parcel, and demonstrat_no the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. (SEE ATTACHED WARRANTY DEED/TITLE COMMITMENT, LABELED EXHIBIT B, PAGES 1 THROUGH 12) 4. An 8 1/2" x ill, vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Ashen. ( SEE ATTACHED MAP,, LABELED EXHIBIT C) 5. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic or. model for: of how the proposed development complies with the review stanaards relevant to the Development Application. (SEE ATTACHED LETTER, LABELED EXHIBIT DI attach2.aclications 1 ATTACHMENT 3 Specific Submission Contents: Development Application for Stream Margin Review The Development Application for development in an Environ- mentally Sensitive Area (ESA) shall include the following: A. A plan of the proposed development, which shall depict at a minimum the following information: 1. The boundary of the property for which development is requested. (SEE ATTACHED DRAWINGS, LABELED EXHIBIT E-1 AND E-2) 2. Existing and proposed improvements. ( SEE ATTACHED DRAWINGS LABELED EXHIBIT E-2 AND E-3) 3. Significant natural features, including natural hazards and trees. (SEE ATTACHED DRAWING, LABELED EXHIBIT E-2) B. For development _ subject to stream margin r=vieTN , the plan shall depict: 1. The 100-year flocdplain line and the ^_g~ water line. (SEE ATTACHED REPORT, LABELED EXHIBIT F) 2. Existinc and proposed grades a-- two -foot c:.-:-curs with five-foot intervals for grades over ten percent (l0 0) . (SEE ATTACHED DRAWING, LABELED EXHIBIT E-3) 3. When development is proposed in a special flood hazard area: accurate elevations (inrelaticn to mean sea level) of the i©wes� floor, including basement, of all new or substantially i^cY'oved structure. ; a verification and recordat_on o _ the actual elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure is constructed; a demonstration that all new construct_cn or substantial' improvements will be anchored to prevent floatation, collapse or -lateral mcvement o f any s uc =u e to be constructed or imp_ rcved ; a demonstration that the szructsre will have the lowest floor, including. baserment, elevated - at least two- (2) feet above t:n-e base flood elevation, all as certified by a registered professional enci neer or architect. (SEE ATTACHED REPORT LABELED J EXHIBIT F) a_ . A descr:.ptie-P of proposed construction tecL, -cues to be used . (SEE ATTACHED OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS, LABELED EXHIBIT G, PAGES 1THROUGH 4 ) att3.streammargin ATTACHMENT 4 Review Standards: Development in Stream Margin No development shall be permitted within one hundred feet (1001), measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond one hundred feet (1001) from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all the standards set forth below. 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed develonment which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase- the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall,be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professiora.l engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevat-on rill not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or c f f -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development_ 2. Any trail on the parcel desianated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parrs/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. . (NOT APPLICABLE, SEE ATTACHED MAP, LABELED - EXHIBIT H) 3. The recommendations o-f the Roaring Fork Greenway flan are implement -ad in the proposed %plan for develoom-ent, to the greatest extent pracricable. (THESE WERE ADOPTED INTO THE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW STANDARDS, WHICH ARE BEING ADHERED TO.) 4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade c::anges made that produce erosion and sedimen:.ation of the stream b a nk.(NO DISTURBANCE WILL BE MADE BELOW THE TOP OF BANK. (SEE ATTACHED REPORT LABELED EXHIBIT D AND.DRAWING LABELED EXHIBIT E-3) 5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference wit:: the natural changes o f the rive= , stream or ether tributary. NO DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED IN THE WATER COURSE. (SEE ATTACHED REPORTS LABELED EXHIBIT D AND F) Water 6. written notice is given to the Colorado rv_ Conserhvation Board prior to any alter t- cr relocation of a water course, and a copy of said -ce is� submitted to; the Federal Emergency Managemenz Agency. NO DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED IN THE WATER COURSE. (SEE - ATTACHED REPORTS LABELED EXHIBIT D-AND F) 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not NO DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED IN THE WATER COURSE. (SEE ATTACHED REPORTS LABELED EXHIBIT D AND F) diminished_ 8. copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain- NONE WIC BE REQUIRED (SEE ATTACHED REPORT) LABELED EXHIBIT F) 9. There is no development other than approve& native vegetation planting taking place below the top of .slope or within 'fifteen (.15) feet of the top of slope or the.high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability.' If'any development is essential within this area, it may only be approved:by special review pursuant to Section 26.64.04 (D) (refer to Figure "A" below for illustrative purposes); and (SEE ATTACHED REPORT LABELED EXHIBIT D.AND DRAWING LABELED EXHIBIT E-3 AND E 10. All development outside the fifteen'.-,(.15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a. line drawn at a forty- five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 26.04.100 (refer to Figure A below for illustrative purposes); and''(SEE .ATTACHED DRAWING, LABELED EXHIBIT E-7) 11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side,, to .native riparian vegetation;. and *(SEE* ATTACHED REPORT LABELED EXHIBIT D AND DRAWING LABELED EXHIBIT E-3) 12. All exterior l i ghti ng is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope; and' (SEE ATTACHED REPORT, LABELED EXHIBIT D) 13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements the top of .slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level; and (SEE ATTACHED DRAWING, LABELED EXHIBIT E-7) 14. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. (SEE ATTACHED REPORT, LABELED EXHIBIT F) PA ATTACHMENT 4 Specific Submission Contents Conditional Use Review For two (.2) Accessory Dwe11i.n9 Units The request a Conditional Use Review shall contain the following items: 1. A written description of the existing conditions on the property which are requested to be altered via the amendment or exempt ion.'.'(SEE'.ATTACHER' LETTER, LABELED .EXHIBIT D) 2. Such site plan drawings or elevations as may be necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed amendment or exemption. ' (SEE'.:ATTACHED: DRAWINGS, LABELED .E-1. THROUGH E-7) 3. A listing of all previous development approvals granted to, the property, with the approximate dates of said approvals: (SEE ATTACHED* *MINUTES* OF' DRAC REVIEW DATED .NOVEMBER 9, 1995 AND MAY 9, 1996;, LABELED -EXHIBIT: I , PAGES 1 THROUGH 12. 4. A copy of any recorded document which affects the proposed development, including but not limited to recorded plats, agreements and deed restrictions: If changes are proposed to said recorded documents, these should be "red -lined" onto a copy of the original document. ( SEE ATTACHED' WARRANTY DEED/TITLE COMMITMENT, LABELED .EXHIBIT B) LAII1U1 1 TADDUNE 8& GUEST ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL f . TADDUNF, P.C. WILLIANt K. Guesr, P.C. ANUIUM H. BUSCHER of cOUNSEI. 323 WEST MAIN SFr, SUITE 301 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 November 2, 1995 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Parcel A, Off Park Avenue at Regent Street To Whom it May Concern: TELEPHONE. (970) 925-9190 FACSIMILE (970) 925-9199 As attorney -in -fact for Colas Investments, LLC, c/o Sylvio Tabet, 9781 i Oak Pass Road, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, I hereby authorize Jan Derrington, Charles Cunniffe 92chiit2ec5tsf 52to a0tEast Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO, Tel. no. (970)0 as representative of Colas Investments, LLC, and Sylvio Tabet, to act as the representative of and to act*on behalf of Colas Investments, LLC, and Sylvio Tabet, with regard to developmentapplication pertaining to that property cohveyed by Deed datedMay , recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County on May 3, 1995 in Book 779 at Page 900. Paul J. Taddune PJT:ns cc: Sylvio Tabet 3B098-7 D-779 P.-b tZtl/tc�t ,/95 t1t9 : ,47A PG 1 C 13-- REC DOC as S I LV I A DAVIS P I TK I N COUNTY CLERK. & RECONDE R 15.00 71.00 O x 69 !CC 1 WARRANTY DEED 'i111S DEED, Made this 2r)d day of May 1995, between PEITF R HEINEMAN of the County of Jefferson and State of Colorado grantor, and SYLVIO TABET , As Nominee for. an Undisclosed Principal . .those legal address is C/O Chris Tolk, Reese Henry & Company Inc. 400 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 County of Pitkin and State of Colorado grantee: o[ tine %yrivEiSSE-I11,'Irtrat the grantor for and in consideration or the sum of TEN AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERA ---- C $10 00)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - y---= DOLLARS, TION----------------------- 1 the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed,and b these presents does i � grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the grantee, his hors and assigns forever, all the real property together with improvements, If any, and State situate, lying and being in the County of Plt}{iIl' of Colorado described as follows: PAFCEL A: A tract of land situated in the Southwest one -quarter of the Southeast one -quarter of Section 7 and the NorUwest one -quarter of the NorUjeast one -quarter of Section 18, all in Tam-ISMP 10 -South, Range 84 Went of the 6th P.M. being a part of The Mollie Gibson mode (U-S.M-S. No. 4281 Amended) and part of The Lcoe Pine Lode (U. S . M. S . No. 1910) , described as follows: Beginning at Corner No. 3 of said Mollie Gibscl Lode; (Continued) - as known by street and number as: PARR AVENUE ASPEN COLORADO 81611 'I'DGETIIER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thrreio belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and (lie reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hcreditaments and appurtenances . J'O IIAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever —And the grantor, for himself, his heirs, and personal representatives, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the enscaling and delivery of these presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and Indefeasible estate of Inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and' has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same arc free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions ofwhateveimorenatartietllatly described, in tt those he Exhibit A attached restrictions and other matters P hereto and made a part hereof. AND except general real estate taxes for 1995 and subsequent years which after adjustment and proration as of the day hereof; Grantee assumes and agrees to pay. T`ro grantor shalt and will WARitANC AND F6RL'VL'R DEITND (lie above —bargained premises in the quid, and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and 6cry person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part' thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any geh(icr shall be applir_2bl to all genders. 1 IN Wrl'NES.S WHEREOF, the grantor has executed lids deed on the date set forth above. ;a !11 C, Ln rE —h G. (El rD rD N- m a t_n .,o (A PETER HEINEMAN SD\1L' of, e0l oQc,tiQU County of Ile foregoing instrument was a �yledgcd before me this by 01J112 19 9 ��-`yrtrress my hand and ofGcial scat My commission expires (� No. 932A. Rey. 7-64 NYorranty pcccf(Foc I'twtn6rnrhlc Accord) ss. day of 1�— 403891 / PSI EXHIBIT B PAGE2 OF 12 Enter legal descr- `-- cn �� (contin d)3 feet along Lim �- of said Mollie Gibson therxe North 38 ° G,.._. JO East, Lode to the WSt Wester'lY corner of Park Subdivision; I-ot 2, Sunny 1 lime of said Lot along he SOu Y them South n * , 0' 00" East. 114. 00 feet 2, thence South 46°20'00" West, 86.00 feet; thence South 43 40 00 32.60 34.33 feet; feet to a po int on Line 3-4 of said Mollie thence South 52 ° 40' 00" We._s t , Gibson Lode; ° ,� t North 34 17 00 West, 6.86 feet along said Line 3-4 to the intersection with Line 2-3 of said LOOP- Pine Lode; 92.80 feet along said Line 2-3 to corner No. 2 of t North 44° 30' 00" West, said Lone Pine Lam% ° 00" East, 16.. Line 1-2 of said LPit�e Lode to feet ' a lca�g � them North 45 30' - .the 1,.-1tessection with Line 3-4 of said moll ie Gibson LOde; 4 to The Point of 3 4°17,00+1 t North 3401710011 West, 28 . - - feet along Beginning PAFCM B in the southwest one ;. of the Southeast A road easement situated of the Northeast ore of Section 7 arxi the Northwest 0 South, Range 84 West of the 6th one -quarter of Section 18, all in Townsh1P of Lot 3, a part of.Mollie Girl Lode, U•S_M_S. No. 1910, and part P . , being 20.00 feet in width lying 10.00 feet on each side Sunny Park Subdivision, being of the following described centerline; whence Corner No - 3 BegL�xg at a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 3 of said Mollie Gibson Lode bears North 71 ° 45' 19" We to the rig � gstht2hav26 feetradius of 30.00 Ithence 28.61 feet along the arc of a curve feet; radius of 140.C� t�ce 42.00 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having feet; thence North 66 ° 55' 00" West, 57.00 feet; the right having a radius of 40.0 thence 16.23 feet along the arc of a curve to feet; point � the Southeasterly line of th ° 40 r M1t West, 32 _ C>0 feet t0 a p0 the Sarno Property s 8 09 e•-5 H-7?9 P-900 ©9 : y7A PG 2 OF 3 r EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART OF THE WARRANTY DEED 1. Right of the Proprietor of a Vein or Lode to eat and remove his ore therefrom, should the wane be found to penetrate or intei-sect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 20, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 169 and in Book 175 at Page 171. 2. Any and all mining and mineral rights as reserved in the Deed from The Lane Pine Mining C xnparxy to Hurry W. Poschman and Jane, E . Poschman recorded November 10, 1958, in Book 185 at Page 492. 3. Water Agreement between John L. Herron and The Royal Land Corporation re0orded November 20, 1964, in Book 210 at Page 206. 4. Any rights, interests or easements in favor. of the State of Colorado, the Unites States of America, or the general public, which exist or are claimed to exist in, over, under and/or across the waters and present and past bed and banks of The Roaring Fork River. 5. Vestee Subject to C.R.S. 38-30-108, 1973, as amended. 360983 B-7�9 P-901 0.,o5�103195 09:471) PG 3 of 3 „r EXHIBIT B - PAGE 4 OF 12 Form 1766 Commitment Face Pepe COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company FIRST AMP-RICAN TITLE INSURAN herein called the Company. for valuable consideration, CE COMPANY, Of or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule Acovered b inn favor or hereby commits to issue its policy Insured named in Schedule A. as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interestfor; all subject tot a provisions of Schedules referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. ive only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amountrefo the issuance. icy This Commitment small be effect Y the Company, either at the t . or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by of this Commitment or by subsequent indorsement. to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obli This Commitment is preliminary policyor policies cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective detsu hereof olf P the is not the fault gations hereunder shall provided that the failure to issu policy committed for shall issue, whichever firstoccurs, not provd or binding until countersigned by. an authorized officer or agent. of the Company., This commitment an has caused ti�is Commitment. to be signed and seated, bs. Tl°is Commitmvalid len ent IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company an all in accordance with its By countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the company, as "Effective Date.” is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A , n M E it ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION �s r c., 600 East Hopkins Avenue, Suite 305 Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-4050 • ��\�� ;ALL Fax: (303) 920-4052 x Agent tor. FirStAlllerican Title Insural" Compatly first American Title Insurance Company == 011 INS F 61, PRESIDENT C �t BY 1 r-SE(' 1 EMU E R 2.h, SECRETARY !� �c 19G1i ATTEST �,0' COIJNTEFiSIGNED ,•_' COMMITMENT ScIlEyJL.E A E BUEFOOIS N & NpRSE ASPEN F�\ST WMAN AVE ;EN Co 61611 Ef£eative Date: April 4, 1995 at 7 : 00 I'M DC/dc J�LTA, pwripr' s policy proposed IiLs~um-ed PAUL TA,LXJNE �d,nee for an undisclosed prir�iP�- r LTA Loan policies proposed Ins RAILROAD SAVINGS BANK, FSB Proposed Insured: order ferenc38 - MINE'-"'Custo�? Amount. Bnmmt : $ _. wit a.r1d referr estate or ixzterest � the lard dies �. ored, to i.n this cover bexein is: FEE SIMPLE- t effect ive date h�ceof vested .' n` and title tit° is a PETER HEINEMAN issued by: ration Aspen Title Corpo 600 E. Hopkins Avenue, 11305 Aspen co.,, 81611 Fax (303) 920- Over 595-8463' (303) 920-405 1i pw-par I .s Premium: $ L,ecxder' s gre,,1.u,, , $ $ Add' 1 Ierx�er �e - $ Add' 1 Tax Certificate: $ gx orsea-pnt Chg - $ TBD Cj-oj�*ges • $ Z'OTLlL Ciiil�tGES ' $ TITLE INSURANCE �'� FIRST 1�I�N COMMITMENT Plat id No pier No . 403891 -� . SCHWULE n (continueinued. ) the land in ttke State of Comcnitn_ent is covering Z'tbe land ref erred to in the desc�ribecl as follows: Colorado, Cou1zty of Pitkin PARCEL A: -ter of. the Southeast Southwes t one of the A tract of land situated NOrU1 .t Pne-quarter one-q `rowns 10 South, Range ua�.-ter' of Sea of p one -quarter of motion .18, all in I,To�t one-qu a Pit of Tl�e Mollie Gibes L (Ues . M • S - 84 Went of the 6th P . M - t Of The Lane Pine (U . S . M . S . No. 4281 PAtWXOed) and P No. 1910), described as follows: rner 3 o f said Mollie Gibson LodLe 2-3 of said Mollie �in�-.ng at Co ° , �„ East, 100.00 feet along ti-� North 38 00 Westerly corner of Lot, 2, Sunny Park . Gibson Lade to the most Subdivision; East, 114.00 feet along he Southwesterly line theme South 431140100 of said Lot 2; West feet; 46 °-20' 001, 86.00 theno, South East, 32.60 feet; -)e 3-4 of said theme South 43° 40' 00„ West, 34.33 feet to a point on Lii t South 52 ° 40' 3-4 to the Mollie Gibson Lode; 6.86 feet along said Line t North 340 17' 00" West Lode % . 2-3 of said Low along said Lir� 2-3 to Corner intersection withLir West 92.80 t North. 44 30 00 11 e, Line 1-2 of said Lone NO. 2 of said Lone pine Fast,- S � . 16.70 feet along �d Ellie Gibson ti er ce. North 45 30 00 3-4 of s Pine Lode' to the intersection with Line Lode; 28.90 feet along said � 3-4 to Z� therx� North 3401710011 West, Point of Beginning PARCEL B: arter of the Southeast Southwest one-� arty. of the p, road eanen t situates i n the Northwest one -quarter 1 Of Section 7 a the all in TOWnshiP 10 South, e one-qu of Section 18, n Vie, U.S.M-S- Northeast one -quarter berg a Pit of Mollie Gibson 20.00 feet 84 Went of the 6th P.M., Park Subdivision, being 1910, and Pit of Lot 3, Sunny Par of the following described No. 10.00 feet on each in width lying Centerline; sterly lime of said Lot 3 wY�� innirx3 at a p° int:on the Southey. e bears Now 71045'19" West � llie Gibson Lod ���, �• 3 of said Nb ri ht having a 298.26 feet; t along the arc of a c to tY� 9 tip 28.61 f� . radius of 30.00 f0et% (Continued). FIRST N'OUCAN TITLE INSURANCECCMPANY COMMITMENT _ SCHEDULEBURROWS a N & MORSE ASPEN FrGT J JXMAN AVE BEN Cc) 81611 Order No . 403891 -C4 Effective Date: April 4, 1995 at 7:00 AM Cstcn1er Refer i INEMI�N DC/dc fit• ,ALTA Owner's Policy IiLsured Proposed., rx� for an uisclosed principal PAUL T� ��� jvrotazt : $ Malmo ALTA Load Policies • pr used Iris : RAILROAD SAVINGS SA14Kf FSB mount: $ Alt and - crireferred to in th'-s 4: TI�e estate or inte�-,est in the land described or covered terein. is'. FEE SIMPLE and title t ereto is at the effective date hexeAf vested .�.n: PETER HEINa4 issued by: ration open, Title �� .s Premium : $ zoom 600 E . Hopkins Avenue, ## 305 s Prey it'q , $ Aspen Co . , 816il Lender ,1 Lender Chg: $ Fax (303) 920-4052 Add' 'eS: $ (303) 920-4050 Denim 595-8463 Add 1 Cha-rg Tax Certificate.. Er6orsewent • Chg • $ TOTAL CjjARGES : $ FIRST 1�MCIZIC�N TITLE INSt pAW-E Ca`�'� EXHIbi I COMMITMENT plat id No- ' . Order No. 403891 -C4 SCH. A (�,tinued) . nient is cover ,� lar�3. in ttve State of �e land ref errs to ix' �be ias follows Colorado, County of Pi tkin PARCEL A: -ter Of the Spu t1 P-as t Sou thwes t one of the A tract of land situated t No 1�.t pne_quarter of Section ion . o all in. `township 10 South, Range one-quarte-r arter of Sit Northeast one--qu a Part of The Mollie GibeseS . M. S . 84 West of file 6th P•M• b t of The Lone Pine (U . S . M . S No. 4281 Alr ended) and Par No. 1910) , described as follows No • 3 of said Mollie Gibson Line 2-3 of said Mollie at Corner 11 East, 100.00 feet along lo Sunny Park thenceNorth 38 of Lat 2, Gibson Lode to the most Westerly O°r'� he Southwesterly line Subdivision; ,� 114.00 feet alongtl �e South 43 ° 40 00 East, of said Lot 2% West, 86.00 feet; tilerxe South 46 ° 20' 00" �� East, 32.60 fee to a Post on Line 3-4 of said t� South 43 ° 40'West, 34.33 thenCe Sau.th 52 ° 4010011 Mbllie Gib 3�e%1 �,� WeSt� 6.86 feet along said �-� 3-4 tO the tip No der 2-3 of said �� along said Iine 2-3 to Corrx'x intersection with Linit WeSt92•80 .hem North. 440 30' 00 e; Line 1-2 of said ��= No. 2 of said LOB pine Fast, 16.70 feet along said Mollie Gibson thence. North 45 30 Line 3-4 of s Pi.rye Lade � the intersection with Lode; WeSt� 28.90 feet along said Line 3-4 � The .therx�e North 34 ° 17' 00 point of gegirulir-g • PARCEL B: One -quarter of the southeast Southwest one-� a�X. of .the A mad e�1ient situated in the West one -quart ion 7 and the No ne-qu rt 10 South, Rc ' e of Sit . one-quaof motion 18, �-1 �' n Lade, U . S . M . S . Northeast one -quart' t of Mollie Gibson 20.00 feet 6th P.M*, bed a Pa vision, lle 84 West of and Part o f Lot 3, Sunny Park subdivision, described ii �, 1910, feet on each side of the in width 1Ying 10.00 centerline; of said Lot 3 whexxie at a point : on the southeasterlyrs North 71°45119" West, �� lli, Gibson Lode Corner No. 3 of said ht having a 298.26 fee t% t along the arc of a curve to the rig . thence. 28.61 fee radius of 30.00 feet; (Continued). FIRST AMER' C.AN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXHIBIT B:- NNut i ur l� tinued) 0rdex 403891 -� DESCRIPTION (� . ' radius .�� 42.00 feet along -the arc of a -curve to the left ��� of 140.00 feet: o „West, 57.00 feet; �to the rigYlt tiaV4-xg a North 66 55 00 th�xp arc of a v'e t j� .16.23 feet along the radius of 40.00 o feet; West I'32.00 feet to a point on the tbp�•North 43 40 Southeaster line of the Baker property • i FIEZST NVEF�I CAN TITLE INSUWq CE OaMPANY . COMMITMENT 0 No. 403891 -04 section. 1 TO BE FLIED WZTI i a ors of tt� f ul l THE FpI,Z�7W A� T ,the grantors or mortg 9 t of Item (a) Payment to or for the a000un t to be insures oorzside�cation for the estate or il�t�--s n��t be instrument(s) (s) cl�eatir'9 the estate or in'teres t to be insures Itc i (b) Proper filed for record, to wit xecute and dulyfiled ���ee for an disclosed e frcxn PL•TER HEINF�1� to PAUL TADUNE, 1 ' Deed. executed by either principal • er declaration" executed real property ,��f Deed R,entioned above, pursuant to NOTE : Duly ex to ac seal Pang the Grantor or Grantee, No. 1288 -CRP► 39-14-102. Article 14 of house r an disclosed pri nc-ipal `S the TADUNE, nal inee f o AD SAVINGS BANK, FSB ' Z • Dew Of Txus�t fran pAUL Coul�tY for the use of RAILROAD . public Trustee of Pit�cin to secures $250 , 000.00 agent ei tt� -r (a) authorized a9 20 (Series of _ to the �panY or 1 is duly aOrds-�'-a�� No iidero satisfactory sfer taxes, �,Tpos� y o f Aspen, 3 • real estate 13 (Seacies of 1990) , of �' City have b� fully that the , 1979), and by Ordinal � daat the liens imposes e Ybeen issued pursuant to paid, and o f ExenQtion have Colorado have ( � that Certificates sat-isf ied, the provisions thereo • as a�T nded . �t to C.R.S. 38-30-108, 1973, E: Vestee s JURISDICTION S(IALL BE OB'rAINCD PURSUANT TE OF TAXES DUE LISTING EACH TOURER' S AU HORRID G CUS�� , A C&-ZrIFICA . OR 71iE COUNV E OF $10.00 EAC1-J TO `I'� FTnM Tm COUNTY Z AT A 0IARG TO 1983 C.R.S., 39-1-102 (14.5) R)LL0wING Q,DORS�ENr ICY �t ISSUID, WILL CONTAIN z�iE PO (tAFtGES IN TiIESORIZED �E CW�pROVID® TMT APPLICABLE � �,� �,�y OR ITS Dom' FORM(S), ARE PAID `� F,OLLJ(MING EACH ; IDORS� AGENT. 1 8.1. $30.00- FIRST AMEru TITLE INSURANCE CXW� EXHIBIT B - Ftiu� W U, lc pier No. 403891 -C4 ., EX IONS (continue.) . y arx� all �-u-�eemed 'tax sales . ,a.t t are no ificate of Taxes Due evider�ing � policies to ICE . upon receipt of a er above Gep tion will rot:appear on the Po • tax sales, exj.sting oP�' - }Je issued hereunder' FIRST . AN CAN TITLE INS�E COMPANY hJTICE TO PROSPECTIVE BUYER. OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ' (PUR SUANT TO INSURANCE REGULATION 89-2) A. "GAP" PROTECTION Company or its authorized agent, (iiereinafierterest to be insured in referred to as "Com When First American Title Insurancean shall responsible for recording or filing the legal documents creating e the tale or ion, the Company pang"), is resp ear in a single family residence and for disbursing funds liens pr other title encumbrances which first appear ate the be responsible for any deeds, mortgages, Its pen the public records subseque nt to the Effective Date of the Commitment buts prior to the Effective of the funds: Policy, provided the following conditions are satisfied prior to the Company'sdisbursement documents creating the estate or interest are in the possession of the company- 1. Properly executed to. the Com " Affidavit and Indemnity form signed by the seller and satisfactory 2. A fully executed pany is in the possession of the Company. No Coverage will be afforded against deeds mortgages, lis-pendens, liens or other title e cumbrances ac- d ,insured prior to or at the time of recordation of the documents tually known to the propose. tutes sed herein means those records established under state stafor the �rpchasers for Public Records anourpose of tice of deeds, mortgages, lis-pendens, liens or other title encumbrances P imparting constructive value and without knowledge. B. MECHANICS, LIEN PROTECTION esidence, you may request coverage against loss because of If you are a buyer of a single family r suppliers against your home. recorded claims asserted by construction, labor or material unrecorded to be purchased he If no construction, improvements or major repairs have been undertaken on tain property coverage for unrecorded six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requiremenexecution by the seller of an Affidavit and Indemnity within ro date premium and the e liens will be payment of the app P form satisfactory to the Company. rovements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be pur- if there have been construction, imp of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for chased, within six months prior to the Dale ; Agreements satis- ain construction information; financial information as to seller, the unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain premium; fully executed Indemnity builder and/or the contractor; payment of the appropriatebe necessary after an examination of the factory to the Company; and, any additional requirements as may aforesaid information by the Company. stances for labor or material for which you have contracted or No coverage will be given under any clrc um agreed to pay. DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE ULLY ANY NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DE � I � OF THE COVERAGES REFER RED TO HE RElN UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS SATISFIED. C-3 (Commllment Notice) tAHlbi I U PAGE 1 0 F 2. T -��o• I ` f LoN _ C] �- � CL � Ll AV E cc. c4 co LL PNo rnPon@ I f t M�pL t N w to Q 100 AV E. -z Q � CL a ... ♦y v: J � � +` •,• y"_.' �: .�.. '��. {;i • .::ju.. .ate\ •�::c� ' ti M J - � -1`• � ice: : .t-'• - cry yH� � ' �- .�. - - - - � - - -, ° - : _ :. • - - I z = w a_ cr NEAj o x / cr- f PARCEL AND x c ZONING MAP Z• O cr- eml w � c \ o C w c 3 o v — �. ❑ . ARCHITECTURE PLANNING COLAS INVESTMENTS, LLC. Two Speculative Residences INTERIORS Parcel A off Park Avenue Aspen, CO EXHIBIT D COMPLIANCE WITH STREAM MARGIN REVIEW STANDARDS As stated in the report letter (Exhibit F). from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, the civil engineers who reviewed this project, the proposed development on the subject land parcel is well above the waterway and base flood plain for the Roaring Fork River which abutts it. Therefore, the mitigation measures outlined in Attachment 4 are not needed. Similarly, the trails shown on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan Map (Exhibit H) run along Park Avenue to the North and along the West boundary of Garrish Park which is adjacent to the West boundary of Parcel A. Therefore, there are no trails within the boundaries of this parcel. It is our understanding that the Roaring fork Greenway Plan recommendations were adopted into the Stream Margin Review Standards, which are subsequently being addressed in this application. There will be no development in the lower one third of the parcel which is below the irrigation ditch that more or less defines the top of bank for the Stream Margin setback. The building massing is within the progressive height limit (see Exhibit E-7) of the Stream Margin Standards. The "no build zone" of fifteen (15) feet will be revegetated with native grasses and wildflowers, as will the majority of the land around the developed portion of the site. The trees indicated on the Site Development Plan (Exhibit E-3) will be native Aspen, Spruce, Juniper and Scotch Pine. Shrubs will be Potentilla, Serviceberry and Pfitzer Juniper as well as flowering ground cover planting on the boulder retaining walls. The landscaped areas of the site will be maintained by a drip -irrigation system and any plant materials that die within the required three (3) year period will be replaced. All light fixtures on the buildings and grounds of the developed area will be shield 6d and kept as low as possible to prevent any visible light source form the river greenwayll CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS - 520 EAST HYMAN - SUITE 301 - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5076 EXHIBIT D Page 2 of 2 COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONAL USE (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS) Each of the residential dwellings will have an ADU above the garages as shown in the attached documentation (Exhibit E-4 through E-7). Each unit has approximately 388 SF of net livable area, in addition to access stairs, decks, etc., located over the garage of each dwelling. Although no parking is required for a studio unit, we have provided one for each unit (see Exhibit E-3. On November 9, 1995, we met with the DRAC to discuss Ordinance 30 Design Standards. At that meeting were two of the immediate neighbors who responded to the required posted notice. They had no problem with the size, scale and location of the ADU/Garage elements of the two residences and the site plan was approved unanimously by the committee. A follow- up review by the DRAC was held May 9, 1996 in response to their earlier request to see the final version of all elevations to ascertain compatibility with the neighborhood character. These were also passed unanimously. Mip C-1 �':F'� jv b/ 4 _---_- _-_------ h- `-- ------ --- �4 •� I li 8 E10311HOHY 3JJlNNn3 S3711VHO oclyNolw 'Nldmy 3AN2AY XVYJ CV LU r• 1N3HJS3ANI SV709 i3s Limuld x w I` S13311HOYY 33JINNno S37YVHO 0 oavuo103 'N3dsr 7AN3AV AVYJ 1N3iY1S3AN1 StN700 W fr m X W US UGHIJ' i � 0 :t: � "tn:a � s?: •Lt�rut".'' �- . �, yr �.. .;� 1 w..wNu�l. wrw.Aww. �u • trwt. yr w+w / � �.rw.uur w ruw r.+�.r+w r S1O311HOW 3J31NNl13 S37HVH3 0110 oorao'Ioo •K3dsv 3nK3nv xavd LO x .- .. W "` i 1N3MOAN1 SV7X F 13S llMtl3d� ,ti ' �.j• �y. �.ti:- �:� a p�4�?:rt t- ..w-Y r ,'':. ��. , .�e.,.��7i j:+�i';k:.1?�_ :iil.� .{�'. etc, :P•.. 4 siomHow 3jilmno S378VH.9 OaYV0103 'N3AW 2nN2AY XVYJ IN3n1S3AN1 SV700 LU 13S LIRVId x EXHIBIT F ENGINEERS PAGE 1 OF 3 S SURVEYORS G1Vt (970) 925-6727 SCHMUESER FAX (970) 925-4157 GORDON MEYER June 6, 1996 Mr. Sylvio Tabet Managing Agent COLAS INVESTMENTS, LLC. 97181/2 Oak Pass Road Beverly Hills, CA. 90210 P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Colas Investment Property Stream Margin n Application, FloodRIain Hazard Review, Engineering Report Dear Mr. Tabet: As discussed in my meeting of May 1, 1996 with Mr. Janver Derrington of Charles Cunniffe Architects, I have further reviewed the City's map resources with regard to the floodplain of the Roaring Fork River in the vicinity of the Colas Investment property in Aspen, Colorado. Intmduction The Colas Investment property is located on a property referenced on the Improvement Survey by Alpine Surveys as "Parcel A" in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast '/4 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian in Aspen, Colorado. The property is located off of - North Park Avenue, comprises 0.302 acres and is accessed via "Parcel B", which is labeled as a Road Easement on the survey, from Park Avenue into the site. Floodplain Hazard Review My review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) worksheet mapping, on file at the City of Aspen's Engineering office, indicates that the site. is well above the 100-year flood plain of the Roaring Fork River. Based on my visits to the site, it is apparent that the top of the embankment adjacent to the river, just south of the irrigation ditch, is quite high, some 20 vertical feet above the river's edge according to the area topographic mapping prepared by the City of Aspen and utilized by F.E.M.A. in their flood insurance- rate study in 1985, a copy of which is attached. From my review of the F.E.M.A. mapping and the relative topography map for the site dated March 20, 1995 from Alpine Surveys, existing structures in the vicinity of the building site would i.ndicate that the flood hazard elevation is over 6 feet below the lowest elevation of the supgrade construction for the Colas Investment units. In addition, Unit 1, the closer to the river line of the two units, is over 60 feet horizontally from the edge of the flood hazard zone. Both units of the Colas Investment property design, therefore, do not result in development within the special flood hazard area, do not increase the base flood elevation and would not diminish the flood carrying capacity of the Roaring Fork River. The Colas units, in fact, appear sufficiently 118 West 6th, Suite 200 - Glenwood Springs, Colorado - (970) 945-1004 t EXHIBIT F PAGE 2 OF 3 June 6, 1996 Mr. Sylvio Tabet Page 2 above the flood hazard elevation based on a review of 100-scale F.E.M.A. mapping with 2-foot contours that a more site -specific flood hazard study is not, in my opinion, warranted. The units are also set back from the crest of the river embankment, located just south of the irrigation ditch, a sufficient distance that no disturbance will occur in the riverbed itself nor along the river embankment in wetland areas or riparian vegetation zones. The ditch itself serves as a definition of the top of the bank and will need to be protected in the course of construction. Disturbance of the river bank area is therefore precluded by the site features. I hope these comments are helpful. Call me if I may provide additional assistance or detail regarding these items. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. AJayHammond,.P.E. al, Aspen Office JH(h 96062ER2 cc: Jan Derrington, Charles Cunniffe Architects MUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. EXHIBIT G PAGE 1 OF 4 March 15, 1996 ARCHITECTURE COLAS INVESTMENTS L.L.C. PLANNING Two Speculative Residences. Park Avenue INTERIORS Project #9534 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS General Conditions A. All work performed on this project shall conform to the Uniform Building Code, 1994 Edition as adopted and amended by Pitkin County, Colorado as well as the Pitkin County Land Use Code, series of 1994. B. The zoning for this land parcel.is R-6, medium density Residential. C. The type -of construction is Type V-N. D. The occupancy class is R-3 residential. E. All workmanship shall be equal to the best practice of the various trades involved. F. All work shall be guaranteed against defects in materials and workmanship for a period of one year from date of completion except for roof systems which shall be two years. 2. Site Work A. Excavation and backfill except for access road, shall be confined within the designated building envelope. Store suitable backfill and topsoil materials as well as usable native boulders in area(s) to be selected and approved by G.C. and Owner. B. Backfill and compact to approximately 4 below finish grades indicated on site plan. C. Finish grading with topsoil and landscaping shall be under separate contract with Owner. d. Foundation perimeter drainage system shall be 4" diameter perforated ABS flexible tubing running to dry well under Mechanical Room. 3. Concrete A. Reinforced structural concrete materials shall be as follows: 1) Concrete mix: 3,000 psi min. with 3" slump U.N.O. 2) Reinforcing: Schedule 40 mild steel deformed bars U.N.O. B. Concrete flatwork: 1) Concrete mix: 3,000 psi min. with 4" slump U.N.O. 2). Reinforcing: Welded steel wire fabric, 6" x 6" / # 10 x # 10 U.N.O. 3) Decks and Terraces: Stamped or scored concrete with color additive to be selected. Provide samples for approval. 4) Topping for in -floor heating:. Lightweight concrete or gyperete. 4. Masonry A. Unit Masonry: 1) Concrete block; 8" x 8" x 16" nominal U.N.O. where shown as back-up for fireplaces, stemwalls, etc. 2) Firebrick; 4" x 4" x 8" nominal U.N.O. 3J Reinforcing: Dur-O-WaI "track", masonry veneer tie -backs,' etc. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS - 520 EAST HYMAN - SUITE 301 - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5076 EXHIBIT G PAGE20F4 B. Stone: Entry Wall and Living Room Fireplace 1) Typical wall veneer; 5 1 /2" nominal thickness, "Colorado Buff" sandstone, or equal to be selected. Provide samples. 2) Lay up in "Coursed roughly squared pattern" similar to picture provided by Architect. Mix in native stone quarried from building site in random pattern around windows and doors to be shaped as shown on drawings. Provide sample panel on site for approval. 3) Flagstone flooring: Entry Porch, Master Patio Foyer, Powder Room and Master Bath; 1 1 /2" nominal thickness, "Colorado Buff" sandstone, Carthage Limestone or equal to be selected. Provide sample panel on site for approval. 5. Metals A. Structural Steel framing and fasteners. Schedule 40 or 60 cold -rolled steel U.N.O. as indicated on structural drawings and specifications to be provided later. Provide shop drawings for approval. B. Ornamental Iron: 1) Wrought iron guardrails and handrails for stairs, landings and bridges to be selected. Provide samples and shop drawings for approval. 6. Wood & Plastics A. Structural wood framing and partitions: Dense construction grade Fir/Hemlock or better as called for in structural notes to be provided later. B. Metal connectors, fasteners, etc.: Custom engineered per structural drawings; Simpson strong -tie or approved equal. C. Structural plywood, particle board, etc.: shall meet U.S. Plywood Association specifications. D. Engineered structural wood members: Trus-joist or approved equal. E. Glued - laminated wood beams and columns: Weyerhauser, Potlatch or approved equal with exterior glue. Resawn surface finish where exposed. F. Log Columns/Beams/Corner trim: Stuuctural and "decorative" logs where shown on drawings shall be selected from dead standing native Fir, Lodgepole Pine or approved equal. Rough peeled surface finish U.N.O. G. Wood Roof Facia: Built-up 1 " nominal cedar, sizes as shown on drawings. H. Soffits: 1" nominal T & S Pine plank U.N.O. J. Plastic Laminates: Formica, Wilson -Art or approved equal for A.D.U. kitchen and bath countertops. K. Architectural Woodwork: 1) Window, door and base trim, cove moldings, wall paneling, etc., shall be custom profiles and species to be selected to match flooring, cabinetry, etc.Refer to Section 9. D. Provide samples. 2) Custom wood cabinets for kitchen, master and guest bedroom closets: style and species to be selected. See notes above. 7. Thermal and Moisture Protection A. Dampproofing: Foundation walls at occupied interior spaces; Owens-Corning Tuff-n-Dry system or approved equal. B. Below Srade thermal insulation (R-1 1 min.) 1) ExteriorI Owens-Corning Tuff-n-Dry board or approved equal. 2) Interior: Celotex or approved equal urethane foam board with foil face inward. EXHIBIT G PAGE 3 OF 4 C. Typical Exterior Stud Wall System (R-22 min.) 1) 1 x 10 rough sawn Haida Skirl (wary edge) Cedar siding. 2) Vapor Barrier: Tyvek "Housewrap" or approved equal. 3) Sheathing: 1 /2" CID-X plywood typical U.N.O. 4) Glass Fiber Batts: Owens - Corning or approved equal; 6" (R-19) foil faced U.N.O. 5) Gypsum Board: See Section 9; finishes, 1 /2" thick U.N.O. D. Typical "Pitched" Roof System: (R-54 min.) 1) Shingles: "Class A", Fiberglass shingles to be selected. Provide samples. 20 year factory warranty. 2) Membrane: W.R. Grace "Ice and Water Shield" or approved equal typical throughout U.N.O. 3) Sheathing: 5/8" C/D-X plywood on wood or metal sleepers. 4) 1 1 /2" air space for roof ventilation created by flat 2 x 4's at 24" O.C. 5J Rigid Insulation: Dow styrofoam board or approved equal 3" thick (R-15 min.) 6) Sub -sheathing: 1 /2 C/D-X plywood with 1 ply 30 lb. roofing felt "dry -in". 7) Glass Fiber Batts: Owens - Corning or approved equal 12" thick (R-38) 8) Vapor Barrier: 1 ply 20 Ib. roofing felt. 9) Gypsum Board: See Section 9; finishes, 1 /2" thick U.N.O. E. Typical "Flat" Roof System (R-42 min.) 1) Membrane System: Manville, Carlisle or approve equal SPM over tapered rigid insulation to roof drains. 2) Sheathing: 3/4" C/D-X plywood 3) Glass Fiber Batts: same as "Pitched" roof. 4) Vapor Barrier same as "Pitched" roof. 5) Gypsum Board: same as "Pitched" roof. 8. Doors and Windows A. Clad wood windows: Pella "Designer" and "Architectural" series or approved equal with Low-E squared insulating glass, true divided lights. Cladding color to be selected from - manufacturers standard color chart. B. Exterior Wood Doors: Pinecrest or approved equal, 2 3/4". thick U.N.O. C. Interior Wood Doors: Weyerhauser "Roddis" or approved equal solid core 1 3/4" thick U.N.O. D. Finish Hardware: Schlage, Domus, or approved equal. Lever or knob style, finish to be selected. 9. Finishes A. Gypsum Board: U.S. Gypsum or approved equal. Texture to be heavy troweled "knock -down" U.N.O., provide sample panel on job site for approval. B. Ceramic Tile: Crossville, Emil, Stovax or approved equal from Design Materials, .Inc., Denver, Colorado. C. Marble/Granite Tile: Floors, tub and shower plafform/walls, counter tops, floor of A.D.U. Bath, counter tops in all other Baths except Master in Powder and Master Bath to be selected. Provide samples. D. Wood Flooring: (Refer to section 6.K.1.) Typical in L.R./D.R./Kitchen, Vanities and Bath except Master floors. I" nominal thickness plunk, "cabin grade" Pine, tongue and groove - random lengths and widths, or approved equal. E. Carpet Flooring: Typical in Bedrooms, Walk -Ins U.N.O.; Furnished and metalled by others; coordinated by G.C. F. Wood Ceiling: In Entry/L.R./D.R./Kitchen; 1" nominal T & G. Plank selected to coordinate with wood flooring. EXHIBIT G PAGE 4 OF 4 G. Painting Materials: Devoe, Sherwin Williams, Benjamin Moore or approved equal. Provide sample panel(s) on job site for approval. 10. Specialties A. Toilet and Bath Accessories: Baldwin, Jado or approved equal. Finishes to be selected. Provide samples. B. Tub and Shower Enclosures: American Shower Door Co. Or approved equal. Style and finish to be selected. Provide samples. 11. Equipment A. Kitchen .Appliances (Electric) : General Electric or approved equal; to be selected by Owner, furnished and installed under G.C. B. Kitchen Appliances (Gas) : Viking range; model to be selected by Owner, furnished and installed under G.C. C. Plumbing fixtures: Kohler, American Standard, Just or approved equal. To be selected by Owner. Furnished and installed by G.C. D. Stock Wood Cabinets for Laundry and Caretaker Unit Kitchen and Bath: Riviera or approved equal; style and finish to be selected. Provide samples. 12. Furnishings Not'included in this contract. 13. Special Construction A. Steam Showers: Mr. Steam or approved equal. 14. Conveying Systems A. Not applicable. 15. Mechanical A. Heating System: Gas fired hydronic in -floor system with domestic hot water "sidewinder" storage tanks. Stub out for future solar collector retrofit. B. Plumbing Fixtures: Kohler, American Standard or approved equal. Models, and colors to be selected by Owner. Provide samples. C. Plumbing fittings, trim and accessories: Kohler, American Standard, Grohe, Jado or approved equal. Models and colors to be selected by Owner. Provide samples. 16. Electrical A. Light Fixtures: 1) Standard Fixtures: Halo or approved equal. 2) "Decorative" Fixtures: to be selected by Owner, furnished and installed by E.C. B. Landscape Lighting: to be part of Landscape contract. E.C. to provide circuits and stub -outs as required C. Building Security and Sound Systems: to be selected by Owner, furnished and installed by separate contract. E.C. to coordinate pre wiring. I --0- ' ��1 �'�'��! � III � � EXHIBIT I PAGE 1 OF 12 ARCHITECTURE November 1, 1995 Mr. Stan Clauson Aspen Planning Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Ordinance 30 Review Two Detached Single Family Residences Parcel A Off Park Avenue Aspen, Colorado Dear Stan: Pursuant to our telephone conversation on October 23, 1995, We are submitting herewith an application for review of our request for variance and/or exemption from several of the "Residential Design Standards of Ordinance 30". We would like to be placed on the agenda for the November 9, 1995 meeting of the Design Review Appeals Board. Enclosed you will find our documentation in support of our application. Please let me know if you require additional information. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Janver Derrington, AIA Project Architect Enclosures 0 PLANNING INTERIORS CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS o 520 EAST HYMAN • SUITE 301 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5076 EXHIBIT I PAGE 2 OF 12 e November 1, 1995 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS Mr. Stan Clauson Aspen Planning Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Planning Staff Review of Ordinance 30 Residential Design Standards for Riverside residential Lot off Park Avenue Dear Stan: Thank you for meeting last Friday with John Wheeler and me to review the implications of Ordinance 30 on this land parcel. As we discussed, it does not front on a city street but has access via a driveway easement to Park Avenue. The entrances will actually face the backs of two residences that front on Park Avenue. There is one house to the east side and a dedicated park on the west side. The back of the lot is along the Roaring Fork River. Thus, it is obvious that this parcel does not fit several of Residential Design Standards for Neighborhood Character. As you suggested, we are submitting herewith our request for exemption from those standards which we believe are not applicable for a residential development on this parcel as follows: 1. Building Orientation a) The orientation of the principal mass of all buildings must be parallel to .the street they face (etc.) We believe this is not applicable due to the lack of a city street per our opening paragraph. The units would face the access driveway along the northerly lot line. b) All single family homes (etc.), must have a street -oriented entrance and a street facing window, (etc.). The entrances would face the access driveway, but we believe the street -oriented principal window is not applicable for the reason stated for Standard 1.a. above. c) For single family homes (etc.) the width of the house must be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage along its street facing frontage. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS - 520 EAST HYMAN • -SUITE 301 - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5076 EXHIBIT I PAGE 3 OF 12 We believe this standard is not applicable for the reason stated for Standard 1.a. above. d) For single family homes (etc.) the garage must be setback ten (10) feet further from the street than the house. We believe this standard is not applicable for the reason stated for Standard 1.a. above. e) Multiple unit residential buildings, (etc.). Not applicable (not multi -unit). f) Front units of multiple unit residential buildings, (etc.). Not applicable (not multi -unit). 2. Building Elements a) All residential buildings must have a one-story street facing element (etc.) at least 20% of the building's overall width. We believe this standard is not applicable for the reason stated for Standard 1.a. above. 3. Build -To Lines a) If 75% or more of the residential buildings on the face of a block where a project is to be located are within two (2) feet of a common front setback line (etc.). We believe this standard is not applicable for the reason stated for Standard 1.a. above. b) Corner Sites Not applicable (not a corner site). 4. Inflection a) If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one story in height (etc.). We believe this standard is not applicable for the reason stated for Standard 1.a. above. EXHIBIT I PAGE 4 OF 12 5.. Garages and Driveways a) All portions of a garage (etc.) parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. We believe this standard is not applicable for the reason stated for Standard 1.a. above. 6. Areaways a) All areaways (etc.) on the street facing side of a building must be entirely recessed behind the. vertical plane established by the portion of the building which is closest to the street. We believe this standard is not applicable for the reason stated for Standard 1.a. above. In conclusion, we believe that the remainder of the Residential Design Standards in Ordinance 30 are generally applicable and we intend to comply with for this project. We do, however, request that one of the Specific Submission Requirements on the checklist be waived. That is, the requirement of a street elevation at 1/16" = 1 0" scale including two adjacent buildings on both sides of the proposed project. There is only one adjacent building (and no street frontage). We have provided photographic color prints to show the "neighborhood character" for your review. We believe it would be an inappropriate imposition on the neighbors to field measure their houses in order to provide an accurate "street elevation". We appreciate your attention to this request for review and hope that you will concur with our interpretation. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require more information. Sincerely, Janver Derrington, AIA Project Architect enclosures EXHIBIT I PAGE 5 OF 12 October 31, 1995 Colas Investments, Inc. Two Detached Single Family Residences Riverside Site Off Park Avenue (Parcel A) Aspen, Colorado Project #9534 Revised Zoning Code Review Analysis 1. Current Zoning: R-6 (PUD) Medium Density Residential 2. Lot Size: 0.302 Acres (13,155 SF) 3. Permitted Uses: a) Detached residential dwelling b) Duplex c) Two detached residential dwellings on lot of 9,000 SF or greater 4. Minimum Lot Size: 6,000 SF 5. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit: Single detached residential dwelling: 6,000 SF Duplex or two detached residential dwellings: 4,500 S/unit 6. Minimum front and rear yard: _ For principal buildings: 30 ft total with a minimum of 10 ft each side 7. Minimum side yard: For Lots over 10,000 SF: 15 ft: each side min., 35 ft total plus 1 ft. . for each additional 400 SF 13,155 - 10,000 = 3,155 = 7.89 ft + 35 = 42.89 ft Total 400 8. Maximum site coverage: For Lots of 12,000 - 18,000 SF area: 25% minus 1 % for each additional 1,200 SF 13,155 - 12,000 = 1,155 = .96% 1,200 I 25% - .96% = 24.04% 13,155 SF X .2404 = 3,162.46 SF Maximum Total Site Coverage proposed: 2,800.58 SF ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS - 520 EAST HYMAN - SUITE 301 - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5074 EXHIBIT I u PAGE 7 OF 12 M-INUTES NOV. 9 DRAC REVIEW Present: Sven Alstrom, Jake Vickery, Steve Buettow, Roger Moyer, Marta Chaikovska Stan Clauson, Leslie Larnont Application: Parcel A, off of Park Avenue, Colas Investments, Jan Darrington representative Steve opened the meeting. ,The Board commented that no secretary was present to record the meeting. Staff offered to record meeting. Sven - the definition of inflection needs to be better defined by staff and inflection is applicable to this project. Jan - We have dealt with inflection and have complied with the I story element of the Bibbig House. There are no light wells and we intend to comply with the standards that are applicable and will articulate the facade. Roger - is the drive public or private (response from staff that it is private) Stan - let's focus the discussion on the "street" Roger - the public view plane should be from the bike path and the park Jan - we will use landscape to screen the west and north and river, common elements will be ... (showed photos) Stan - there is no street that the property directly relates to and staff cannot grant variances froin the design standards that is why this is before this board the applicant should not be absolved from the standards and should choose -an orientation in lieu of a street, what does DRAG prefer? Roger - what is the recommendation regarding the river? Stan - We didn't specify Jan - the living and dining are oriented to the river, southwest orientation, street front is an easterly direction facing park avenue, the front property line is the one share with the adjace.n!_ Bibbig property, we have used the variable setback from Garrish Park and the (1 1111intim setback is 10 feet from the park Roger - streets are the public viewplane so the orientation to the river and Garrish Park are similar public viewplanes Jars showed .the elevations of the proposed Monies EXHIBIT I PAGE 8 OF 12 DRAC MINS. 11/9/95 Tom Lane (neighbor) - this project does not influence us but increased traffic onto Park Avenue is a problem. The intersection should be fixed. Shady Lane (neighbor) - has the same comments Sven - staff needs to expand the definition of "street" to include public ways other than a typical street Roger - I move to find that there is no street so the primary public view is to the south & west, the applicant should take into account the massing and scale for public viewplane, the principal location of the site plan and drive as presented meets the criteria and recommend granting the required variances Jake - 1 st, there is no street so there should be no reference to a street, looking at the adding conditions the applicants has responded with: orientation of.mass and healthy setback from the park, narrow small scale forms, the presentation to arrivals is' of concern were the garage door is located, make the driveway more of a green space. In general I do not have much problems. Roger - work with the garage door and the public view plane and the articulation of the massing Jake - we need to see the youth elevations VOTE: passes unanimously EXHIBIT I PAGE � of 12 ,SIGN VIEW REPF A4M TON MAY 9 . 99 Parcel A, off of Park Avenue , Worksesslo-u Buettow stated that the Commission assigned viewplane and specific directions of how this home will face. Moyer said the Commission wanted to see South and West elevations. Vickery asked if this is an ordinance 3 5 project. Amidon responded that it is ordinance 30, the applicant did not know where to orient the house, there is no street that is directly related. Vickery asked where the street is located. Charles Cunnife, applicant responded that it has no street and it looks like there was not a motion to make the park approach a street, the drive up behind Bibbig's house, the houses are fairly consistent all around from each view.. Cunnife said it is a tight little site and thought something that looked as if it had been there for a while would be appropriate. Moyer stated that the applicant has passed and has been approved. Amidon said the Commission wanted the applicant to bring back the South elevation to understand how it related to the pedestrian: Moyer asked, on the West elevation how far is the fence to Wilderness Park. John Wheeler, applicant -said the fence is on the property line, for the -most part, it may stray off a bit. Cunnife said it -is 15' from the stairs and 16' from the house. Alstrom stated the applicant references ordinance 30 windows. Amidon said those are in the "no window" zone.. Cunnife responded because it did not have a street frontage and ordinance 30, where we understood it was not allowing those type of windows towards the street, we wondered if those windows would be permitted. Cunnife said the owner really wanted these windows and pending revision to ' ordinance 3 0, because this has been an ongoing process, we did not know if there would be a revision and wanted to show the owner that we anticipated if there was a revision we could use those windows. Alstrom said he thinks the windows fit the architecture that is shown, hiaj question is are they going to be there. Cunnife responded that it is up to tho Commission. ' Duettow said the way ordinance 30 is written now, doesn't the 3' "no window" zone apply to ,all sides of the building. Amidon responded that as it stands right Z'd N3JSd J0 J il9 WNOT :0T 9G, S0 Mf .txHIbII I PAGE 10 OF 12 DK'. I now, they can not do this without doubling the FAIL in those rooms, but this Commission does have the ability to waive the standard if it is suitable, the applicant would need to. post the property first because we have not been asked for any variances tonight. Buettow said it was the intent, in ordinance 30 to have the 3' "no window" zone from the pedestrian viewpoint, a passing street or in this case where we have assigned public access. Blaich said that if he understands it right, it was mostly addressing palladium windows. Vickery stated that he did not know if it was clear, but all of ordinance 30 primarily focused on impacts of structures to one another and to the street. Blaich said the windows, to us add a lit*.1e "funkiness" which fits that neighborhood and up in the park, you really can not see this house from the park, except maybe in the winter looking through -the 'trees,' it's a good distance. Troyer said it is pretty haxd to see from, the bicycle path too. Buettow said we should give the applicant fultlher comments on whether we think that part of the ordinance Should deal only from the public street access. Alstram skated that he would waive that on this particular building and site, he thinks we are grasping. for a hi.eraTchy o decision. makh�g on ordinance 30, when it's on a street in the west end, when it's on another street and when the street view is defined from a pedestrian point, neighborhood compatibility and compatibility with adjacent buildings. Alstrom said in this case. he thinks we should waive the ordinance to help'the applicant have a better visual house and sense of space in the house, lie will be restricted by the energy code on the sizo of glass so we are not giving him carte' blanche to have as much glass as he wants: Vickery said when this window rule was integrated with the FAR rule the old volume calculation was eliminated, in addition to that a new provision in ordinance 30 allows structures to go higher based on the 3rd point of the roof as opposed to the half mid -point of the roof, he thinks all of that is interrelated and is willing to consider giving relief on the window issue, but we have to pay attention to the fact that under those circumstances there is no longer a volume limitation so, in his* opinion when someone requests relief under the "no Nvr.ndow" zone they should present the FAR calculation as it was done under the old volume calculation, because there is no volume control anymore. Vickery stated that when ordinance 30 was passed part of the rational -for allowing those charges in 0 E . d r i3�s� ��� �.� i wd l T : 0 T oG . so Nnf EXHIBIT I -PAGE 11 OF 12 ESIGN Rwy-TE-)KAITEALSA the roof pitch and removal of the old volu.z . 0, calculation was the thinking that this would be the replaoement. control on those aspects of a structure. Blaich stated what he thinks we. were targeting is a.lot of these oversized widows, •wh©ther th©Y are palladium or not, they were very big, he thinks it is a question of design and appropriateness, for him they are appropriate for this structure and the site of this structure. Blaich said this building, in another location might not be appropriate, this is the type of call we have to make, will it be beneficial to the house and not negative to people who see the house, neighbors and people who go by it. Moyer said wasn't the Treason, really, to alleviate" these grand entrances, it was a reaction to that. Buettow-Said that was his understanding, so there was some separation. Vickery said someone, could build a three story high volume and would only pay for one floor area in FAR, under the old rules once your plate height went above 10', the penalty kicked in. Buettow said we are dealing with this on a case by case basis. Alstrom said Vickery is pointing out that if we waive the requirement on windows, we could potentially allow the.m.,to go over their allowable FAR. Cunnife said if you do this on a case by case basis you can analyze that and in this case we do not have any plate heights over 10'. Cunnife stated that they came in to show the Commission the elevations but are not hiding the fact that they would like to see these windows, and we get the feeling that it -is a likelihood that this could pass the approval process. Blaich stated that on the caretaker ADU, you will have a hard time with this- one because there is an interior entrance going down into the living room and the planning and Zoning Commission is taking some very hard-nosed positions to make sure that ADU's are not just guest bedrooms. Buettow stated totally separate, no inter relations. Wheeler asked what if it is a personal Atendan4 or works for someone in that capacity. Blaich said that issue has came up,"in a particular case an applicant said . a nanny should be able to hear the' kids, �&Z-said no, it has to have a separate entrance. 10 . , H3dsH 3o 1,II9 tIuTT:oT 9G. SO hint PAGE 12 OF 12 DESIGREVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, a_996 Vickery said that he thinks P&Z will see a challenge on that at the City Council level because there is nothing, in the deed restriction that says the ADU has to be rented or can not be used as part of the main house. Meeting adjourned at 5:3:0 p.m. Amy G. jSm�id, Deputy Clerk • 11 S ' d N3dSd 30 1.1 I D WUF- I : 0 I 96 , Se mf Exhibit B. TO I To: Bob Nevins, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer (? ` Date: June 26, 1996 Re: Colas Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit & Stream Margin Review (Parcel ID No. 2737-074-00-028 ) Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Legal Description - To what does the designation "Parcel A" refer? Is the parcel a legally subdivided parcel? 2. Application Completeness - This application appears to be lacking many details. We recommend that the application be tabled in order for the applicant to provide additional information as further discussed below. 3. Site Improvement Survey - Neither the site improvement nor the topographic survey is signed and stamped by a registered land surveyor. The building permit application must include signed- , nd stamped surveys. The site improvement survey must include a statement that all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy No. , dated , have been shown on the survey. If this application is resubmitted, the surveys should be revised at that time. The revised site improvement survey should also show a 12" +/- . cottonwood tree and abutting boulder retaining wall that may both be encroaching into the emergency access. 4. Site Design - There appears to be too much development for the limits of the property. a. Bouldpr Retaining Walls - In order to construct the walls indicated in the application, it would . be necessary to excavate into adjoining properties. Prior to approval of this application, the applicant should provide construction easement agreements from neighboring property owners in order to permit him to construct the walls as shown in the application. 1 b. Adjacent Properties - At the time of our site visit, there was a vehicle parked on the proposed emergency access easement. The applicant should be required to submit a map showing the Bibbig property lines, structures, and parking spaces. The area is cluttered and poorly defined, and we are concerned about other neighboring and adjacent uses that may conflict with the proposed development. It may be advisable to require,a map that shows all of the. properties abutting the applicant's property and abutting the proposed access easement, again showing structures and uses, in order to determine that there are no other conflicting uses. c. Top of Bank - It appears that the top of bank line presented in the application should be reconsidered to the 7930 line shown in the attached portion of a City 50 scale topographic map. 5. Access - The City Code requires 20' access width. Although there is an easement for 20' access width, there is an existing structure that encroaches into the easement. The Fire Marshall should review this application before the City takes any further action to approve or not the emergency access width as well as the need to provide on the site for emergency response vehicles to turn around. The current design does not provide sufficient space for emergency response. vehicles to be able to turn around. The access shall be an out lot, not an easement. The access appears to be restricted vertically by an overhanging balcony. The access should provide a vertical clearance of 14' . The driveway is poorly defined and enters Park Avenue at a stop sign. Approvals should require that a driveway be constructed that meets City standards, including paving. The driveway should be constructed in a manner not to damage the root system of the 12' cottonwood tree referenced above. 6. Irrigation Ditch - We recommend that a revised application include thorough documentation of communication with the ditch company. The ditch company should be included in public notice mailings and specifically be invited to attend any public hearings. 7. Par - The application states that the development will provide. on site parking for the ADU's "although no parking is required for a studio unit." The Engineering Department recommends that the on -site parking spaces be provided. A revised application should include a letter from a civil engineer registered to practice in Colorado which designs the turning movements for vehicles parking in garages and in designated parking spaces. It does not appear that there is adequate room for vehicle turning movements. (Note - City Code requires designing parking spaces for 8 1 /2 feet by 18 feet. This implies that turning movement design should be based on an 18' long vehicle. 8. Site Drainage - One of the infrastructure systems that is incapable of handling additional loads is the City storm sewer and storm runoff system. It must be a condition of approval that the building permit plans provide for storm runoff to be maintained on site and not discharged to 2 neighboring properties, and the Roaring Fork River, as well as providing erosion and sediment control both during and after construction. 9. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. The building permit drawings must indicate all utility meter locations. 10. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - The property contains no street frontage, however the development should share in such costs similar to any other residential development. Since_ the access is through the Dieter Bibbig property at 101 Park Avenue, we suggest that the applicant be responsible for 50% of sidewalk, curb and gutter costs adjacent to 101 Park Avenue. This obligation is generally fulfilled prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If the project progresses, we will evaluate closer to the time of C.O. whether to require construction or an agreement to construct or to reimburse the City the costs of construction 11. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets department (920-513 0) for street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the city community development department. M96.179 I 3 ,.,... .. ,.,. e. _ � �., s.R�. mu :e::ate.Ta^i'.0 si+,� �r,srH�rt_rtf?i'11il�`bl!%��? ;,,. ... t.- _, � ._ 26.60.010 Exhibit C Chapter 26.60 CONDITIONAL USES Sections: f 26.60.010 Purpose 26.60.020 Author!' 26.60.030 Authoronditional uses. 26.60.040 Standa plicable to all conditional uses. 26.60.050 Procedr conditional use approval. 26.60.060. Applica 26.60.070 Aesery 26.60.080 Amendof development order. 26.60,010 Purpose. f Conditional uses are hand uses which are generally compatible with the other permitted uses in a zone district, but which dividual review of their location, design, configuration, intensity and density in order to ensure the apprcness of the land use in the zone district. (Code 1971, § 7-301) 26.60.020 Authority. sr The commission, in accce with the procedures, standards and limitations of this chapter, shall approve, approve with conditions, or drove a development application for a conditional use, after recommendation by the planning director. ((( 971, § 7-302) 26.60.030 Authorized w tional uses. Only those uses whicuthorized as a conditional use for each zone district in Chapter 26.28, may. be approved as a conditions; The designation of a land use as a conditional use in a zone district does not constitute an authorizatif such land use or act as an assurance that such land use will be approved as a conditional use; rather, =posed conditional use shall be evaluated by the commission for compliance with the standards and con( set forth in this chapter. (Code 1971, § 7-303) 26.60.040 Standards affable to all conditional uses. When considering a de ent application for a conditional use, the commission shall consider whether all of the following standam met, as applicable. A. The conditional consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, tith the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located; and B. The conditional ti consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for devtnent and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the irriate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and C. The location, `sizdgn and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including vimpacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circa lation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations odor on surrounding properties; and 587 D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the condil use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emcy medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet ttremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional stan imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of tht. The planning director may recommend, and the commission may impoch conditions on a conditional use that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the city's zone districtsto ensure the conditional use complies with the purposes of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, this c1r, and this title; is compatible with surrounding land uses; and is served by adequate public facilities. 'Includes, but is not limited to imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, buff, lighting, signage, off-street parking and other similar design features, the construction of public facif to serve the conditional use, and limitations on the duration of conditional use approval. (Ord. No. 7 § 2: Code 1971, § 7-304) 26.60.050 Procedure for conditional use approval. A development application for a conditional use shall be reviewed and upended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the planning director, and then approapproved with conditions, or disapproved by the commission at a public hearing held in accordance with thedures established in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. A development application for a conditional tay be consolidated with any other development application pursuant to the requirements of common .dures, Chapter 26.52. (Code 1971, § 7-305) 26.60.060 Application. The development application for a conditional use shall include thawing. A. The general application information required in Section 26.52. B. A sketch plan of the site showing existing and proposed featurach are relevant to the review of the conditional use application; and C. If the application involves development of a new structure or anion or exterior remodeling of an existing structure, proposed elevations of the structure. (Code 197-306) 26.60.070 Reserved. Editor's note— Ord. No. 7-1989, § 2, deleted former § 7-307, relo conditions, which derived from Ord. No. 5-1988. (Code 1971, § 7-307) 26.60.080 Amendment of development order. A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an a/ed development order for a conditional use may be authorized by the planning director. An insubstantnendrnent shall be limited to changes in the operation of a conditional use which meet all of the follostandards: 1. The change will not cause negative impacts on pedestrian and vear traffic circulation, parking or noise; and 2. The change will not substantially affect the tourist or local orien of the conditional use; and 3. The change will not affect the character of the neighborhood iich the use is located; and 26.60.080 4. The change will not increase the use's employee base i retail square footage in the structure; and 5. The change will not substantially alter the external vippeardnce of the building or its site. B. Other amendments. All other amendments shall be appry the commission pursuant to Sections 26.60.010 through 26.60.070. (Code 1971, § 7-308) 26.68.010 Exhibit C Chapter 26.68 DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA) Sections: 26.68.010 Purpose. 26.68.020 Authority. 26.68.030 8040 geenline review. 26.68.040 Stream margin. 26.68.050 Mountain view plane review. 26.68.060 Hallam Lake Bluff review. 26.68.070 Procedure for approval of development in ESA. 26.68.080 Application. 26.68.090 Conditions. 26.68.010 Purpose. Certain land areas within the city are of particular ecological, environmental, architectural or scenic significance and all development within such areas shall be subject to special review procedures and standards as set forth in this Chapter 26.68. These areas shall be known as Environmentally Sensitive Areas -(ESA) and shall include the following: A. 8040 Greenline. Areas located at or above 8040 feet mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) and including that area extendinghundred one fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline. Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rock fall and mud slide, and aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses. Review shall further ensure the availability of utilities and access to any development and that disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features be kept to a minimum. B. Stream margins. Areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one -hundred -year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within a flood hazard area (stream margin). Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce and prevent property Ioss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features. C. Mountain view planes. Designated mountain view planes as set forth in Section 26.68.050. Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to protect mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the city, maintain property values, and enhance the city's tourist industry by maintaining the city's heritage 'as a mountain community. D. Hallam Lake Buff. That bluff area rurming approximately on a north -south axis bordering and/or overlooking the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature preserve and bounded on the east by the 7850-foot mean sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, up slope and ihiere terminating, and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision, and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street. Development in this area shall be subject to' heightened review so as to reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature preserve, protect against slope erosion and landslide, 595 (Aspen 1 o/9s> 26.68.010 minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain views to and from the nature preserve, and ensure the aesthetic and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve. (Ord. No. 71-1990, § 5: Code 197.1, § 7-501) 26.68.020 Authority. The commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this chapter, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA). (Code 1971. 4 7-502) 26.68.040 Stream margin. A. No development shall be permitted within the floodway, with the exception of bridges or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, which may be permitted by the City Engineer, provided plans and specifications are submitted to demonstrate that the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the Commission determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with all the standards set forth below. B. No development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all the standards set forth below: . 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Community Plan, Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map, or areas of historic public use or access are dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. Dedications are necessitated by development's increased impacts to the City's recreation and trail facilities including public fishing access; and _ 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable; and 4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; and 5. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course; and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and 7. ! A guarantee is provided in the event a watercourse is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and 597 (Aspen 10/95) 26.68.040 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one -hundred - year floodplain; and 9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian.vegetation and bank stability. If any development is essential within this area, it may only be approved by special review pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D) (refer to Figure "A" below for illustrative purposes); and 10. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 26.04.100 (refer to Figure "A" below for illustrative purposes); and 11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side to native riparian vegetation; and 12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope; and 13. - Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level; and 14. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. (A-socu 10195) Figure "Aff I Illtitltl Illtllfl! itlr!!ltlllillrltll Iltllttllllllltlrlir! IIIIItllfllltttlitillttrl fillIIlIIlllill111 !ttltttltlrrlt , lltttlillllfllillllttlttitltlttiitt llllliltllllilll / IIII111 11111111 1ililllilt111 Iilit111111t11t1 IliIIII fill II 1 11 11 Il1l111 trirlillilllilllll Ititlllttllit (lllltliltlrllitlt Illtirliitil Top of Slope 45' ilillrlllltittittrl ttrttllllltt l,I,I,I,I.1.1 1 1 1 1,1 t i Development Allowed within Progressive Height Limit river 1 S' Setback NO DEVELOPMENT •• 26.68.070 Procedure for approval of development in ESA. A development application for development in environmentally sensitive area (ESA), shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the planning director, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the commission at a hearing held in accordance with the procedure established in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. A development application for development in an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) may be consolidated with any other development application pursuant to the requirements of Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. (Ord. No. 71-1990, § 7: Code 1971. § 7-507) 26.68.080 Application. The development application for development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) shall include the following: A. The general application information required in Section 26.52.030. B. A plan of the proposed development, which shall depict at a minimum the following information: I. The boundary of the property for which development is requested. 2. Existing and proposed improvements. 3. Significant natural features, including natural hazards and trees. C. In addition to these minimum plan contents, the development plan submitted for development in each type of ESA shall also include the following: 1. For development subject to 8040 greenline review, the plan shall depict: a. Existing' and proposed grades at two -foot contours, with five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10) percent b. Proposed elevations of the development. C. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 2. For development subject to stream margin review, the plan shall depict: a. The 100-year floodplain line and the high water line. b. Existing and proposed grades at two -foot contours,. with five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. C. When development is proposed in a special flood hazard area: Accurate elevations (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor, including basement, of all new or substantially improved structures; a verification and recordation of the actual elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure is constructed; a demonstration that all new construction or substantial improvements will be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of any structure to be constructed or improved; a demonstration that the structure will have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to at least two (2) feet above the base flood elevation, all as certified by a registered professional engineer or architect. d. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 3. For development subject to mountain view plane, the plan shall depict: a. Proposed elevations of the development, including any rooftop equipment and how it will be screened. b. Photographs shall be submitted by the applicant which show the present improvements which protrude into or are in the vicinity of the view plane. The applicant shall graphically represent on the photographs how the proposed improvements will appear in relation to existing improvements and views. (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9; Ord. No. 71-1990, § 7: Code 1971, § 7-508) 26.68.090 Conditions. The planning director may recommend nimecommend and the commission may impose conditions to its approval of development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA), which includes but is not limited to means for. A. Minimizing any adverse impact of the proposed development upon lands, including the use and operation and the type and intensity of activities which may be conducted; B. Controlling the sequence or timing of proposed development, including when it must be commenced and completed; C. Controlling the duration of use of development and the time within which -any structures must be removed; D. Assuring that development is. ►nainta ined properly in the future; or E. Establishing a more detailed record by submission of drawings, maps, plats or specifications_ (Ord. AT - -7 1 1 nnn 0 --T - , - - 4 n-.4 (1 -. ___. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Bob Nevins, City Planner THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director DATE: July 2, 1996 RE: Addendum to Conditions of Approval Colas Conditional Use Review for Two Accessory Dwelling Units and Stream Margin Review The comments from Engineering are not fully incorporated into the Community Development Staff Memorandum Conditions of Approval. The following conditions should be included as part of Staff's recommendations: Conditio 7. Building permit plans provide for storm runoff to be maintained on site and not discharged to neighboring properties and the Roaring Fork River, as well as providing erosion and sediment control both, during and after construction. Conditio �8. The applicant to be responsible for 50% of sidewalk, curb and gutter costs adjacent to ark Avenue prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. City Engineering will evaluate whether to require construction or an agreement to construct or to reimburse the City for the costs of construction closer to the time of Certificate of Occupancy issuance. _ Conditio9 The applicant shall receive for approval and obtain the necessary permits for work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property from the following Community Development departments: City Engineering (920-5080) for design improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; Parks (920- 5120) for vegetation species; and Streets (920-5130) for street and alley cuts. AMENDED RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for two studio, accessory dwelling units and the stream margin review for the two, detached single-family residences proposed on Parcel A. -off Park Avenue at Regent Street with the conditions 1-9 outlined in the Community Development Office Memorandum and Addendum dated July 2, 1996." Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } } ss. State of Colorado } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 6-205.E. I Janver Derrington of Charles Cunniffe Architects being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 20th day of June 1 1996 (which is 12 days prior to the public hearing date of July 2, 1996 ) 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 20th day of June If 19961 to the 2nd day of July , 1996. (Must be posted for at least ten (10 ) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the post sign is attached S iarkture f da of S'�ned before me thi Y v , , 19 9 fa* by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Mp C m issi n- e pi 0C Notary Public AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I have complied with the notice requirements of Section 6. 2 0 5 (E) (3) (C ) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of" the Aspen Municipal Code by mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto by first class, postage prepaid, U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property on June , 20 , 1996 nver Derrington, AIA Charles Cunniffe Arc tects STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS COUNTY OF PITRIN ) The foregoing Affidavit of mailing was signed. before me this day of WITNESS my hand and official sea . My commission expires: r l Notary Public PUBLIC NOTICE RE: COLAS INVESTMENTS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 2, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an application submitted by COLAS Investments, requesting Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Review approval for two approximately 336 square foot Accessory Dwelling Units to be attached to two proposed detached, single family residences. The property is Parcel A, off Park Avenue at Regent Street and is described as a tract of land situated in the S W 1 /4 of SE 1 /4 of Section 7 and the NW 1 /4 of NE 1 /4 of Section 18, all in Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. being a part of the Mollie Gibson Lode and part of the Lone Pine Lode. For further information, contact Bob Nevins at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920- 5 102. s/Sara Garton Chair Planning and Zoning Commission JUN 20 '96 09:12AM ASPEN TITLE P.1 ADJACEN'r OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE Order No. A •96-00' ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado, HEREBY CERTIFIES -That is has made a careful and diligent search of the rBcords in the office of the Clerk aril Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, and his determined that those persons firms or entities set forth on the Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof, reflect the apparent owners of lots, tracts, parcels and condominium units lying within 300 feet of the following described real property situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin State of Colorado, to -wit: SEE EXHIBIT "B" This Certificate has been prepared for the use and benefit of the above named applicant and the City or Town of. As en in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. THE LIABILITY OF THE`( EREUNDER IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE PAID FOR THIS CERTIFICATE PLUS $25C.00 DATE: June 18, 1996 ASPEN JITL E CORPORATION, a Colora corporation �- A a � � JUN 20 '96 09:12AM ASPEN TITLE P.2 1), Thomas E. Lewis 7 Barracuda Lane 33037 Key Largo, FL 936 Gibson Avenue 2). Peter & Janet B. Wirth P .0 • Box Aspen, Colorado 81612 990 Gibson Avenue 3). Howard H. Hatanaka 980 King Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 980 King Street 4)• Donald William Lang ach Jacquelyn A. Kabab P.O. Box 4181611 Aspen, Co. Unit-1 Patricia 5). Deborah Flug 616 E. Hyman Aspen , Co. 81611 173 Park Circle 6), Michael R. ckwood David C. Lo 1002 E. South Shore Drive Unionville, IN 47468 173 Park Circle Unit 3 7) . King Street Dedication City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 King Street (Astor) 8). Lois M. Brownell Vagn,eu,r & Wayne Vagneur P.O. Box 28267 E1 Jebel, Co. 81628 990 King Street 990 King Street & Unit 2 Belinda Bee 9). James L. Curtis Curtis & Associates 300 E. Hyman 2nd Floor Aspen, Co. 81611 955 King Street 10) . Janet & Norton Eisenberg 407 Park Avenue Aspen,, Co. 81611 407 Park Avenue 11). Wayne Vagnuer Lois M. Vagnuer P.O. Box 28267 El Jebel Co 81628 Unit 3 Belinda Bee 12). Mary Ann Erb _ 840-1 Greenwood Dr--i ve Longmont, Co. 805'03Townhomes Unit C Park Avenue JUN 20 '96 09:12AM ASPEN TITLE PAGE 2 IL P.3 13). Lisa K. & James D. Hancock 710 Midland Park Place Aspen, Co. 81611 407 Park Avenue Townhomes # B 14), Robert H. & Jocelyn Burg 524 Congaree Col umbi a , SC 29205 407 Park Avenue Dust 15). Thomas D. Isaac Revocable Tr 975 King Street Aspen, Co. 81611 975 King Street 16). Magne Nostdahl Arne Marthinsson 607 E. Cooper Aspen, Co. 81611 Un it 3 Marthinsson-Nostdahl %Unit 7 / Uni i: 5/ ,Unit 10/ Unit 1 17) Dieter Bibbig P . 0. Box 175 Aspen, Co. 81612 Park Avenue ( Sunny Park) 115 Park Av(:nue (East Park) 101 18). Tom Pepper International S.A. Panamanian Corporatiol 977 Queen Street Aspen, Co. 81611 977 Queen Street (Tract 40) 19) Joan Ball Lane 1100 Santaclara Grand Junction, Co. 81503 105 Park Avenue (Mascotte Lode # 5867) 20.) dean Stern kips Avenue 1020 E. Hop _ Aspen, Co. 81611_ Unit 2 Bldg 1 RIVERVIEW 21) . Jean & Leo. Eirsel Julia McCue Samuel & Diana Mason 4820 E. Vassar Lane Denver, Co. 80222 1020 E. Hopkins (Unit 6 Bldg 1 RIVERVIEW 22) Helen & Carl Marbach Way 17730 Scarsdale y Boca Raton, FL 33496-1331 Unit 5 Bldg l RIVERVIEW 23). Samuel & Ruth Weisbbard Apartment 31-B 100 E. Bellevue P1 p Chicago, IL 60611 Unit 8, Bldg 1 RIVERVIEW . JUN 20 '96 09:13AM ASPEN TITLE PAGE 3 & P. 4 24). Stella Henry Conner Trust, Nancy F. Gray Trustee 152 Juniper Hill Alburquerque, NM 87122 Unit 75 Bldg 19 RIVERVIEW 25). Williams Sandra Trustees Williams Sandra Revocable Trust 718 Heathery Lane Naples, FL 33963 Unit 4,, Bldg 11 RIVERVIEW 26) Ol i ve' Sei gesmund P.0, Box 9680 Aspen, Co. 81612 Unit 15) Bldg 26 RIVERVIEW 27). Dr. Lothar M. Varady 5036 Maunalani Circle Honolulu, HI 9681-6 Unit 9s Bldg 1, RIVERVIEW 28). Patricia A. Schroeder 2010 E. 38th Street Suite 204 Davenport, IA 52807 Unit 12, Bldg. 2, RIVERVIEW 29) Susan I. Barlow 1010 Grand Avenue. # .500 Kansas City, Mo 64106 Unit 1, Bldg 1, RIVERVIEW 30) Setsuo & Ichimaru Tomoko Ichimaru 3-924 Kamlochiai 324-4 Yono-Shi Saitama 338 JAPAN Unit 10, Bldg 2, RIVERVIEW 31). Elizabeth Owen & John C. Fergus 500 S. Front Street Suite 770 Columbus, OH 43215 Unit 39 Bldg 1,, RIVERVIEW 32). William W. Kennedy Revocable Living Trust .3721 Ventura Drive Suite 100 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Unit 18, Bldg 2, RIVERVIEW 33). Florence F. Hose 1024 E. Hopkins # 11 Aspen, Co. 81611 Unit 119 Bldg 2:, RIVERVEIW 34). R & R Company M. Starmer E & B Marsco 653 26 1/2 Road Grand Junction, Co. 81501 Blk 259 EAST fSPEN ADDITION) 1008 E. Hopkins (Lot L-N) JUN Za '96 09:13RM ASPEN TITLE PAGE 1 P.5 35). J. Michael Solheim Dale Hower Sol82im 43995 Highway Aspen Co. 81611 Unit 179 Bldg 2, RIVERVIEW 36). Robert William Card Trust p.O. Box 30036 Co. 81503 Grand Junction, Lot N-0, Blk 25, EAST ASPEN ADDITION 37). Graham Loving III 1024 Hopkins # 13 Aspen, Co. 81611 Unit 13, Bldg 2, RIVERVIEW 38). Paul e•AAuAUyilrTrustee Carol 1231 Ashland Wilmette, IL 60091 Unit 149 Bldg 29 RIVERVIEW 39). John A. Graye Jr. P .0 . Box 9464 Aspen, Co. 81612 Unit 1 Park Avenue Townhomes 40). Amy Gilbertson Neal J. Beidleman P.O. Box 4362 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Park Avenue TownhoeB. Winnerman 41). Lawrence J. & Lorraine. 317 Park Avenue Aspen, CO. 81611 Unit 315-317 Park Avenue Townhomes 42). Harry C. Moore P.O. Box N7776 Nassau Bahamas Unit B Torpen 43). Theresa Birrfeld#r24 1028 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit 24, Bldg 3, RIVERVIEW 44). Robert F. & Gloria J. & Linda S. Lewis 398 Caballo Carbondale, Co. 81623 _ Unit 23, Bldg 3-, -RIVERVIEW 45) . Robert A. Cardwell 1672 Louise Street 9 Laguna Beach, CA2651 Unit 229 Bldg 3, RIVERVIEW 46) . Eugene * & Linda Budi n Kal i tsky1601 1701 S. Flagler Drive Apartment West Palm Beach FL 331 Unit 19, Bldg 31 RIVERVIEW 47), Jettie M. Kelly National Bank of Commerce P.O. Box 82408 Lincoln, NE 68501 Unit 20, Bldg 3, RIVERVIEW I f l u & ■ JUN 20 '96 09:13AM ASPEN TITLE I 48) Norma Las Dolle P .0 . Box 4901 Aspen, Co. 81612 Unit 210 Bldg 3*., RIVERVIEW 49). Stewart L. Wallis Lyndsay Shaddock Green International, Inc. P.O. Box 370470 Denver, Colorado 80237-0470 Unit 2-7, Bldg 3.; RIVERVIEW 50) Christine Elkins 2992 Shadow Creek Drive # 302 Boulder, Colorado 80303 Unit 26, Bldg 3, RIVERVIEW 51). Peggy Kri gel Revocable Trust Peggy Kri gel Trustee 5530 Mission Drive Mission HIllss KS 66208 Unit 25, Bldg 3, RIVERVIEW 52). Timothy Mooney P.O. Box 8931 Aspen, Co. 81611 Lot 1, Blk 2, RIVERSIDE ADDITION 53) . Gene P. McCutchin 14833 Midway Road Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75244 Unit 2, LIEN -TWO 54). Jo I seph R. & Barbara P. Tarbet 980 Gibson Avenue Aspen, Co. 81611 Alpine Acres 55). William R. Dunaway Tena D. Farr P. 0. Box E Aspen, Colorado 81612 998 Gibson Avenue / 996 Gibson Avenue 56). D. Stone Davis Lynn C. Russell P.O. Box 8904 Aspen, Colorado 81611 165 Park Circle 57). Smuggler Mountain Apartments Pitkin County 506 E. Main Street Aspen, Co. 81611 170 N. Park Circle JUN 20 '96 09:14AM ASPEN TITLE P•7 PAGI: 6 58). Basalt Riverview -Ltd John R. Werning Friederike Stenger 905 E. Hopkins Aspen, Co. 81611 160 Park Circle (Sunny Park) 59). Walter H. & Marian H. Procktor 1815 S. Federal Blvd. Denver, Co. 80219 Metes & Bounds 60). Marcella De Cray Trustee of the Marcella De Cray 30 Commonwealth Avenue San Francisco, CA 94118 Tract 40 EAST ASPEN ADDITION 61). C. L. Astor & Company 981 King Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot 4 First Amended. Astor Plat 62). Bass Cahn Beneral Partnership P.O. Box 5078 Aspen, Co. 81612 Lot 2 Amended Astor Plat J 995 King Street 63). Garrish Park City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 King Street 64). Aspen Grove Cemetery Association C/O Ramona Markalunas 624 N Street Aspen, Co. 81611 Cemetary 65). Kenneth R. Sterling Martha W. Sterling 323 W. Main Street Aspen, Co 81611 1250 Regent Street (Riverside Addition) 66). Edwin L. Phelps Linda S. McFarlin 4112 Faith Court Alexandria, VA 22.311 163 Park -Avenue (Riverside Addition) 67). Mary Ann & Otto N. Frenzell I11 101 -W. Washington -Street Indianapolis IN 46204 315 Park Avenue 68). Barbara & Bernard a. Grenell 702 N. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 193 Park Avenue (Lien -Two) JUN 20 '96 09:14AM ASPEN TITLE I ►iuL 1 P.8 69j.. Margaret 0. B. Trousdale 7 Alexander Lane Li ttl eton , Co . 80121 1024 Hopkins Avenue 70}, p . S . W . D . Investments Co. Ltd. c/o Carl Linnecke 215 S. Monarch Suite 101 Aspen Co. 81611 Unit A Torpen 4 JUN 20 '96 09:14AM ASPEN TITLE % P. 9 4 EXHIBIT OWNER: COLAS INVESTMENT, PLC. PAFCEL A: A tract of land situated in the Soutl1west one —quarter oll:' the Southeast one -quarter of Section 7 and the Northwest one -quarter ():f the Nortbeast cm-guarter I of Section 18, all in TOwnshiP 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. being a pactof The Mollie Gibson Lode (U.S.m.s. No. 4281 Amended) and part of The Lone Pine Lode (U.S.M.S. No. 1910), described as follows: Beginning at Corner No. 3 of said Mollie Gibson LOCle; 3 of said Mollie thence North 38000100" Cast, j.0().00 feet along Line 2- Gibson.Lcde-to the 11*0st Westerly Corner of Lot 2, Sunny Park Subdivision; tkjerKae South 431,40100" East, 114.00 feet. along he Sou-thwes,terly line of said Lot 2; tj)&joe South 46*20'00" West, 86.UO feet; thence south 43'40100" East, 32.60 feet; int on Tine 3-4 of said thence South '52040100" west, 34.33 feet to a PO Mollie Gibson Lode; 6.86 f said Line 3-4 to the thence North 34 * 17'00 " West, -eat alOng Intersection with Line 2-3 of said Lone Pine Lode; -&jei North 4403010011 West, 92.80 feet along said Lim.. 2-3 to Corner No. 2 of said Lone Fine Lode; thence North 45030'00" East, 16.70 feet along Leine 1-2 of said Lcmc- Pine Lode to the intersection with I Line 3-4 of said Mollie Gibson Lode; thenceNorth 34 el 17'00 " West, 28. 90 feet along said Lino 3-4 to The Point of Beginning and also PARCF,L,B: A Toad eaSemmt situated in the SOu'd*le-st one -quarter ()f -the Sout±leas't one -quarter Of Section 7 and the, Northwest One -quarter of tbe Northeast one-quaxter of Section 113e all in Township 1() South, Range 84 West Of the 6th P.M., being a part of Mollie Gibson Lode, U-S-M-S- No. 1910, and part of Lot 3, S=-Iy Park Subdivision, h!ing 20-00 feet in width lying 10.00 feet On Eachside of the followirxl des-Cribed ceryterline; 13eginning at a point on the Southeasterly line Of said Lot 3 wbence. Corner No. 3 of said mollie Gibson Lode bears North 71451 1911 , West, 298.26 feet; thence 28.61 feet along the arc of a Curve to the right having a radius of 30-00 feet; (continued) JUN.20 '96 09:15AM ASPEN TITLE - EXHIBIT "Q" CONTINUED P.10 thP. rzoe 42.00 feet along the arc of a curve to the left ] zav-'XV radius - of 140.00 feet; thence North 66 ° 55' 00" west, 57.00 feet; thence 16.23 feet along the arc of a cuzve to the right having a radius of 40.00 feet; thence North 43 ° 40' 00" west, 32.00 feet to a poi nt on the Southeasterly line of the Ewcker property. Ing MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission > THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development DirectorG- FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director D M DATE: July 2, 1996 RE: City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project Final SPA Review - Public Hearing SUMMARY: The proposed Water Treatment Plan and Affordable Housing Development would house essential city employees, including emergency response personnel, adjacent to the city's water treatment and distribution facilities. The project also calls for significant improvements to both the infrastructure and office facilities of the water plant. The Final SPA application is attached as Exhibit A. The Conceptual SPA Plan was unanimously approved by City Council on May 22, 1996, by Ordinance 15, Series of 1996. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. APPLICANT: City of Aspen Asset. Management Department, represented by David Hauter (Project Manager) LOCATION/ZONING: Lot 2 and 4, City of Aspen Thomas Property. The property is located at the end of Doolittle Drive, south of Castle Ridge Housing complex, and includes the City water plant. The entire parcel is approximately 54 acres, with approximately 5 acres proposed for residential development. The property is zoned Public (PUB) with an SPA (Specially Planned Area) overlay. The adjoining residential uses to the North are zoned R-15 PUD SPA. PROPOSAL: The following approvals are requested: 1. SPA Amendment to accommodate the proposed affordable housing development and improvements to the existing Water Plant; 2. Subdivision to create a separate 4.39 acre parcel for the affordable housing development; 3. Conditional Use Review for affordable housing in the Public zone district (final approval by Commission) 4. GMQS Exemption for affordable housing; 5. Special Review for parking, open space and dimensional requirements for the affordable housing development (final approval by Commission); and 6. 8040 Greenline Review (final approval by Commission). STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has responded to the conditions set forth by City Council during the Conceptual SPA Review on pages 12-15 of the application. 1. SPA Amendment: The applicant proposes to amend the Lot 4 City Thomas Property SPA Amendment #1, dated 3/27/96, to accommodate the proposed affordable housing development and improvements to the existing Water Plant. Per Section 28.80.010, the purpose of a specially planned area (SPA) is to: A. Provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address its historical significance, natural features, unique physical character, or location, and where potential exists for community benefit from comprehensive development. B. - Allow the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design practices which permit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional requirements. C. Establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public benefit. The Final SPA review standards are summarized below, followed by staffs response. 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Response: The appropriateness of the site for affordable housing and the proposed density and conceptual design of the project were established during the Conceptual SPA Review. The affordable housing units will be located adjacent to existing housing complexes and the existing water treatment plant. Floor plans and elevations for the affordable housing units and the new/remodeled buildings at the water treatment plant are included in the application packet. Staff recognizes that the design is somewhat limited by the affordable nature of the project. The design approach of the units have a strong "New Urbanism" influence, with one-story front porches accessed from a common pedestrian walk on the east side of Doolittle Drive. The porch and kitchen window of each of the 17 attached units are oriented towards the landscaped open space. The auto free common open space is bordered by a broad sidewalk which serves each unit and provides a focus for social interaction and personal identity through individual front porches. Autos are clustered along Doolittle Drive, and are screened by a landscaped berm to minimize asphalt and buffer the street. Massing of the buildings is characterized by simple volumes, gable roofs, cross gables and shed porches, representative of a "western" design feel. Each unit has a one story porch, which reduces the perceived mass of each structure. All units are two-story, except the studios. The units have a strong solar orientation, and energy efficient design is proposed, including super efficient insulation and low flow water appliances. Massing of the structures has been reduced by stepping down to a one-story studio on the structures adjacent, to the parking area. Small buildings are located along the street for the emergency response building, van shelter, mail kiosk, recycle center and covered parking. The single-family units on the west side of Doolittle Drive have gone through several design changes to address comments from both Planning Staff and City Council. The current design abandons the Off -site impacts are summarized in the Engineering Report. Improvements have been defined for lower Castle Creek Road and the Maroon Creek/SH 82 intersection. As a result of analyzing these improvements as well as projected traffic counts, a pro-rata share of the traffic impacts generated by the project are estimated at $5,052.63. This figure must be approved by the City and County Engineer prior to final approval. An issue that was discussed before City Council was the operational problems associated with the RFTA bus stop located near the terminus of Doolittle Drive at Castle Creek Road. The existing stop is not adequate for passenger waiting, and buses are partially in the travel lane when boarding. Staff has proposed a design modification (see Exhibit C), which would relocate the shelter approximately 15 feet towards Castle Creek Road to create additional storage room for buses. The existing trail that provides access across Castle Creek Road to the Marolt Property would also be relocated. Staff would suggest that the improvements be funded and constructed by the City as mitigation for the increased transit use by residents of the project. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Response: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. prepared a subsoil survey of the site in May of 1995, and concluded that the project is feasible, however, underdrain systems will be required due to depth to groundwater (see Geotech Report in the application). Specific recommendations regarding foundations, retaining walls, floor slabs and site grading are included in the report and must be followed during construction. The project is not located in an area having known mud flow, rock fall, avalanche or flood hazard areas. A Phase II Environmental Audit is included with the application packet, and does not identify any hazardous waste on the site that would preclude either residential or municipal land uses. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant viewplanes, avoid adverse environmental impacts andprovide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Response: The project has employed progressive and responsive land use techniques based on comments from the Commission, City Council, and City staff. The units overlooking the bluff have been set back, and the second story has been "stepped back" from the rear facade to limit the structural projection from the top of slope. In addition, none of the existing scrub oak will be disturbed. The lower portion of the site is proposed to be public open space. No concrete proposals for improvements or ownership of the park has been discussed. Future planning for the site will include the Water Place, Castle Ridge and Twin Ridge residents. The applicant is proposing an 8' wide recycled asphalt trail that would descend to the Twin Ridge intersection to provide exclusive pedestrian access to the RFTA► bus stop and the Marolt trail. Snowplowing and maintenance of the trail will be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. The open space component of the multi -family units on thd east side of Doolittle Drive is an asset, and will provide an amenity to the entire area. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 5 series of reciprocal agreements to ensure access to each unit. Similar agreements will be required for access to the single family units, due to the private access easement nature of the roadway. The slope will be altered upslope and downslope along Doolittle Drive, and staff hgs concerns regarding the slope retention and revegetation of the area. The proposed slopes reach 2:1, which will make topsoil retention difficult. Prior to recordation of a final plat and subdivision agreement, the applicant will be required to provide security to ensure survival for required plantings for at least two years. Sidewalks. Staff and the applicant have discussed many options for pedestrian travel to and through the site, including consideration of sidewalks on either side of Doolittle Drive. These options are not practical due to snow plowing constraints and potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Staff believes that the best option is the proposed path which descends to the Twin Ridge intersection. Maintenance and plowing of the sidewalk will be responsibility of the Homeowners Association.. Subdivision Agreement: Prior to or concurrent with the recordation of a final plat, the applicant and City Council shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement binding on the subdivision to any conditions placed on the development order. Landscape Guarantee: In order to ensure implementation and maintenance of the landscaping plan, the City Council may require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements. Public Facilities Guarantee: In order to ensure installation of necessary public facilities planned to accommodate the subdivision, the City Council shall require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than 100 percent of the current estimated cost of such public improvements, as estimated by the City Engineer. 3. Conditional Use Review: Affordable housing is listed as a Conditional Use in the Public zone district, therefore, this project must comply with the criteria of Section 26.60.040. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located; and Response: Consistency with the AACP was previously addressed. The intent of the Public zone district is "to provide for the development of governmental and quasi -governmental facilities for cultural, educational, civic and other governmental purposes." The 54 acre site currently contains the Aspen water plant facility, accessory structures and one residence. The SPA overlay encourages innovative design and the development of mixed land uses to provide for the greatest public be The creation of affordable housing for emergency response personnel and City employees will benefit the City and the community. B. The conditional use [.,*s consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Response: This criteria is addressed above. 7 5. Special Review: Special Review is required to establish dimensional requirements and off-street parking requirements for development in the Public zone district. The applicant requests the following dimensional requirements: PROPOSED SETBACKS Unit Type Front Side Rear Single -Family Detached 0 0, 5 total 5 Duplex 5 0, 5 total 10 Triplex 5 0 10 The requested setbacks will establish a building envelope for each structure, which will be identified on the Final SPA Plan. Any expansion shall occur within the building envelopes. • Minimum Lot Size: 2,000 square feet/townhouse unit; 5,850 square feet/single-family detached unit • Maximum Building Height: 28 feet measured from existing grade to the ridge ( For comparison, the adjacent R-15 zone district restricts height to 25 feet. Staff notes that structures can exceed this height depending on roof pitch.) • Maximum FAR: 0.5:1 for the single-family detached dwellings; 0.75:1 for the attached townhouse units • Off -Street Parking: 1 space/studio; 2 spaces for all other units; 4 guest spaces will also be included in the parking lot. Pursuant to Section 26.64.040(A), the proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following criteria: 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Response: The proposed setbacks and height of the structures allow clustering of the units in order to retain more open space on the property. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. Response: The applicant has worked with the adjacent homeowners to minimize the visual impact of the project, and proposes to limit the speed on Doolittle Drive to 20 mph: The proposed off-street parking shall also comply with the following requirements of Section 26.64.040(B): 1. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on -street parking of 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Response: The units are below or meet the minimum net livable square footage requirements in order to minimize impact on the site. The townhouse units have been divided into duplexes and triplexes to reduce the perceived bulk of the structures. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Response: All utilities are available and have sufficient capacity to service the development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Response: Reconstructed Doolittle Drive will be adequate to serve the development. Maintenance of the road will be the responsibility of the Streets. Department. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Response: All roads have been designed to City of Aspen standards. Fire access has been improved within the townhome site via a twenty-five foot wide dedicated fire access which loops through the site providing access to within seventy-five feet from the furthest structure. The surface of the fire access will be ten feet of hard paving (concrete or asphalt) and ten feet of subsurface grass paving system. Specifications of the grass paving system must be provided to the Fire Marshall for final approval prior to construction. Staff is concerned regarding the ability of emergency vehicles to access the site from Doolittle Drive over the handicapped ramps shown on the plans. Staff would suggest that the applicant review the plans with the Fire Marshall prior to the Council meeting. IL Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/ Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. Response: The proposed trail and common space will be dedicated for public use. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval based on compliance with the following conditions: 1. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council a#e considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. 2. The amended SPA Development Plan shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the amended SPA Development Plan within a period of 180 days following approval by the City Council shall render the PUD approval invalid and 11 19. The eventual trail alignment shall be staked for review by the Community Development Department, and shall avoid as much existing vegetation as practical. Snow removal on the trail shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. 20. Residents from adjacent residential neighborhoods should be included in the planning and design of the proposed park. The park should be adequately fenced or screened with vegetation to keep children from straying onto Doolittle Drive. The applicant shall submit a park design to the Parks Department for approval prior to the recording of a final SPA Plan. 21. A park development impact fee will be granted in exchange for the applicant's commitment to design and construct park development activities (grading, drainage, top soil, seeding and vegetation). 22. No fireplaces are approved for the development. 23. A fugitive dust plan shall be approved by Environmental Health prior to the issuance of any grading, excavation, utility, demolition, or building permits. 24. Financial guarantees for landscaping, revegetation, and public facilities improvements must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to the issuance of any development permits for the project. 25. The applicant shall submit pavement treatments for the crossing of Doolittle Drive for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to the recording of a Final SPA Plan. 26. All construction shall be consistent with the Geotech report recommendations conducted by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the Final SPA Development Plan, Amendment of the Aspen Water Treatment Plant SPA, Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing and Essential Public Facilities, Subdivision, 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use and Special Review for Parking, Open Space and Dimensional Requirements in the Public Zone District for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Affordable Housing Project, subject to the conditions noted in the Community Development staff memo dated July 2,1996." Exhibits: A - Final SPA Application B - Referral Comments C - Proposed Bus Stop Improvements 13 4 �. MEMORMDUM AP R 1 11995 To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office DEVE: QPW. t , From: Betsey Kipp, Environmental Health Department PEN 19< � Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Officer Date: April 14, 1995 Re: Water Place Affordable Housing SPA Amendment, Subdivision, GMQS Exemption, Conditional Review, & Special Review Parcel ID # 2735-132-00-858 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the Water Place Affordable Housing land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following - comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1. 7 "it shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any.buitding used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device." The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD. The applicant needs to provide final documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development. A condition of approval will be a letter from ACSD confirming their intention to provide sewage treatment to the project. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system." The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe drinking water. The City of Aspen Water Department shall determine if adequate water is available for. the project. The City of Aspen's water supply meets all standards of the Colprado Department of Health for drinking water quality. I 1 FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. Due to the close proximity of many residences, the applicant should be sure to use aggressive dust control measures. A condition of approval will be the receipt and approval of a fugitive dust plan before final review. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to --the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors. .....Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels." During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The applicant should be aware of this, and take measures to minimize the noise levels before they become an issue. TOXIC SUBSTANCES/AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION: Three areas of primary concern r6garding'potential contamination have been identified by Waste Engineering, Inc.(WEI) who performed a Phase One Environmental Audit. The three areas are as follows: 1. Transformer storage area where soil samples have tested positive for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). 2. The above ground storage tank area where diesel and leaded gas were previously held. 3. The sediment trap which is used to collect sludge from street -sweeping operations. It is this Department's understanding that a Phase II Environmental Audit will be conducted to determine the extent 'of the contamination at all three sites. A condition of approval will be the receipt of the Phase II report before final approval will be given for this project. 3 Exhibit C T _ S Z4 /7, 7Z, 9 F 7—/".2 lz:he WIP—taffii.osC NOTICE DATE _ ' / . TIME PF _ACE PURPOSE_ 113 A� 1�kw_lold_14 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING fa)''J2o��,�:, I have complied with the notice requ�.rements of Section 6- 205 (E) (3) (C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of' the Aspen Municipal Code by mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto by first class, postage prepaid, U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred 0 ) feet f the subj ect property on ,, Hot (a STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS COUNTY OF PITRIN ) The foregoing Affidavit f mailing was signed before me this day of WITNESS my hand and official seal. may c(mnmission expife. my commission expires: 12IM11997 Notary Public Attachment S County of Pitkin } } ss. State of Colorado(iJ� } I, AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 6-205.E. being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, ai dicated on the attached list, on the A day of , 199_b(which is �7 days prior to the public hearing date of �� )• 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was pos ed and visible Y Y continuous) from the -day of 199cy, to the ��7 day �� 199 C-C (Must be posted f or at least re� )(0) ful l�da js before the hearing date). A photogra hereto. (Attach photograph here) of � the dolt -sign is a tached S i gnatur a--G-- Signed before me this clay of 19 9 by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expir�; Mo Co isAio e(pir�s : IM114w, c ,NAA N t w o a/\ Notary Public July 2, 1996 To: City of Aspen- Public Hearing 2 rom: Castle Ridge Associates Subject: Proposed water plant employee housing This is to state, publicly, Castle Ridge Associates position regarding the proposed water plant employee housing. While Castle Ridge Associates does not oppose the proposed housing plan, there is one specific and some general concerns. General concerns include traffic speed and volume, the presence of dogs, and the effect on Castle Ridge of any lighting. When the City of Aspen built Castle Ridge Apartments, a large boulder was left in a precarious -looking position on the cut in the hillside between Castle Ridge and the water plant. Castle Ridge associates requests to see the City's plans for mitigating the poss- ibility of dislodging this boulder during the planned construction. Castle Ridge Associates will certainly hold the City res- ponsible for payment of any damages suffered as a result of the pro- posed construction. This issue has been raised at public hearings on this project previously, but since it is so important, and Castle Ridge Associates has, to date, received no response to our request for a mitigation plan, it is being brought up here again, tonight. Please address all correspondence to: Castle Ridge Associates c/o Tom Lacy P.O. Box 2109 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81602 City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Improvements And Affordable Housing Project CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT Final Land Use Application Requesting Approval for: SPA Amendment #2 Subdivision GMQS Exemption Conditional Use Special Review 8040 Greenline Review June, 1996 Submitted To: City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Applicant: City of Aspen Asset Management Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 CONSULTANT TEAM Land Planning. - Thomas G. Stevens The Stevens Group, Inc. 312 E AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-6717 Architecture: David Gibson Gibson Reno Architects 210 East Hyman, Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-5968 Civil Engineering: Jay Hammond Schmueser Gordon Meyer 118 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 19 CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT Final Land Use Submission SECTION NUMBER I. INTRODUCTION H. RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - WATER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS A. Comparison to Conceptual Submission B. Development Program C. General Site Improvements/Public Facilities 1. Access 2. Utilities a. Water b. Sewer C. Private Services 3. Security IV. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT A. Comparison to Conceptual Submission B. Development Program C. Unit Categorization and Sales Rates D. Architectural Description E. Deed Restriction F. Site Capacity G. SPA Development Data H. Conditional Use Within PUB Zone I General Site Improvements/Public Facilities 1. Access 2. Grading and Drainage 3. Landscaping 4. Easements 5. Open Space 6. Van Pool Service/Trash Collection/Mail 7. Utility Service a. Water b. Sewer 3 C. Private Services 8. Outdoor Lighting 9. Parking J. Homeowners Association K. Requested Variances L. Construction Schedule M. Fire Access/Prevention V. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS A. SPA (Section 7-804) B. Subdivision (Section 7-1001) C. GMQS Exemption (Section 8-104c) D. Conditional Use (Section 7-301) E. Special Review (Section 7-404B) F. 8040 Greenline Review (Section 7-500) V. MAPPING C 1. Existing Conditions Map C2. Final Specially Planned Area Map C3. Final Plat C4, Site Layout Plan C5. Site Layout Plan C6. Doolittle Drive Profile C7. Utility Layout Plans, North and South Site C8. Utility Layout Plans, North and South Site C9. Utility Detail Sheet CIO. Final Grading and Drainage Plan CI 1. Final Grading and Drainage Plan C 12. Water Plant Storage Buildings - Architecture C13. Water Plant Storage Buildings - Architecture AO. Architectural Index Al Site Plan A2 - Al 1 Architecual Plans and Elevations - Housing Al2. Architectural Plans and Elevations - Outbuildings A13. Water Plant Addition A14. Site Sections L1. Final Landscape Plan 4 VI. EXHIBITS 1. Application Form 2. Pre -Application Form 3. Letter of Authorization to Represent 4. Deed 5. List of Adjacent Owners 6. Engineering Report 7. Subsoils Study S. Phase One and Two Environmental Site Assessments 9. Master Deed Restriction 10. Homeowners Association By -Laws 11. Construction Schedule 5 I. INTRODUCTION Conceptual submission approval was granted this project by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on April 16, 1996, and by City Council on April 223, 1996. This application submitted by the City of Aspen Asset Management Department (herein after referred to as the Applicant) requests Final Submission approval for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Water Place Affordable Housing Development. As this process was begun while under review of the "old code", the conceptual application as well as this final application are submitted in compliance with this code. The review sections of this application therefore address the previous code sections. The information submitted as well as the design standards however, comply with the requirements of the new City of Aspen Land Use Regulations dated February 1996. The specific areas of requested approvals, consistent with that approved at Conceptual Submission are as follows; • SPA Amendment #2 to Lot #4, City Thomas Property • Subdivision • GMQS Exemption • Conditional Review • Special Review • 8040 Greenline Review All relevant provisions of the Code with respect to these review requirements have been included within this application. The SPA portion of this application will seek to amend the Lot 4 City Thomas Property SPA Amendment #1 dated 3/27/84 which granted approval the City of Aspen water plant facility and accessory uses. This 100% affordable housing component of this development proposal will house only the employees of the Applicant and shall comply with all regulations set on fourth within the Affordable Housing Guidelines and the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations, The Applicant currently owns the property which is zoned Public. The Parcel has not merged with any adjacent tract. While the Applicant has attempted to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of this application, questions may arise which result in staffs request for additional information and/or clarification. The Applicant will be pleased to provide such information as may be required in the course of this application review. 7 H. EXISTING CONDITIONS This section is identical to that submitted within the Conceptual application. It has been included in this Final application for convenience. The project site is located at the end of Doolittle Drive within the City limits of Aspen, south of the Castle Ridge Housing complex. The property proposed for construction comprises a portion of Lot 4 of the City owned Thomas property as defined in Amendment 1 to the SPA Map dated 3/27/84. Lot 4 currently comprises 54 acres and this proposal would utilize approximately 4.95 acres for the residential development. Construction of the two storage structures and road re -alignment by the City of Aspen Water Department is proposed to occur on the remaining 39 acres. A. Site Access; Access to the site is via the existing Doolittle Drive which intersects with Castle Creek Road. During the construction of the Health and Human Services Building, the intersection of Doolittle Drive and Castle Creek Road was improved to accommodate additional traffic. Doolittle Drive was also improved during the construction of Twin Ridge by widening the pavement up to the Twin Ridge Drive intersection. The remaining section of Doolittle Drive from Twin Ridge Drive, approximately 560 feet, has not been improved. The gradient at centerline is in excess of 10% in some places and pavement width varies from approximately 14 to 20 feet. Castle Creek Road then intersects with Maroon Creek Road and immediately again with State Highway 82. Castle Creek Road from the Doolittle Drive entrance to the intersection of Maroon Creek Road comprises approximately 2,000 linear feet of two lane roadway with a pavement width which varies between 24 and 26 feet. The roadway 8 currently meets Pitkin County Class III local Access Standard with two 11 foot lanes, one to two foot paved shoulders and additional gravel shoulders from 6 inches to 4 feet in width. Current design capacity of the existing road pursuant to Pitkin County Standards is between 700 and 1,100 vehicles per day with a suggested speed of 35 miles per hour. The Lower Castle Creek Road (between the Aspen Valley Hospital campus entrance and the intersection with Maroon Creek Road) is also encumbered with intersections accessing the Aspen Valley Hospital campus, Meadowood Subdivision, the Pitkin County Assisted Living Facility, and the Marolt Ranch Housing Project. Current traffic volumes on the Lower Castle Creek Road, based on the traffic count study undertaken by Pitkin County in September of 1993, show a 24 hour traffic volume for that date of 5,333 vehicles at the Maroon Creek intersection. Converting this figure to annual average daily traffic (AADT) utilizing the Pitkin County AADT adjusted factors results in an AADT for Castle Creek as of 1993 of 4,335 vehicles per day (VPD). The Colorado Department of Transportation installed a traffic signal at the intersection of Maroon Creek and State Highway 82 in the summer of 1987, and has resulted in significant improvements to the level of service of that intersection. The Maroon/82 intersection now functions at a level of service "C" (stable flow) with only intermittent queuing problems for traffic attempting to turn left onto Maroon Creek Road from the highway, or turn left onto the highway from Maroon Creek Road. The existing Maroon/82 intersection is currently constrained by two major factors including proximity to the Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road intersection and to the limited queuing capacity of the left turn lane from Maroon Creek Road onto Highway 82. Source: Schmueser Gordon Meyer Engineering Report, March 23, 1995 9 B. Existing Uses; The subject property currently contains the City of Aspen water plant facility, accessory structures and one residence. As this facility has public security concerns, the facility is fenced off from the public. The specific structures are five buildings associated with the existing water treatment plant, raw water reservoir, treated water reservoir and a backwash pond, a maintenance building, and one residence. Storage of related equipment currently occurs on the property but only on a limited basis within specific structures and primarily outside. The proposed location of the affordable housing currently serves as Water Department and Electric Department storage. This storage location is proposed to be relocated to a new location as described in Section III, Proposed Development. C. Utilities, The City water main lines originate at this site and their location and size have been represented on the Existing Conditions Map. The proposed development site is located on the boundary of the City's gravity system and the pumped pressure zone for Meadowood. An existing 8 inch main line located within Doolittle Road will provide service for the upper 12 units while service to the fourplex will be provided from an existing gravity line connecting Castle Ridge to Twin Ridge. Sanitary sewer service exists to the site via a line which is located existing the Castle Ridge site, and running up the steep slope to the subject property (again, this is represented on the Existing Conditions Map). As 10 this is a service line only, a main line extension will be required originating at the upper loop of the Castle Ridge site. Private utilities are all located within the subject property (see Engineering Report, Exhibit 6). D. Vegetation, Vegetation on the site is limited primarily to scurb oak with some aspen and cottonwood. In the location of the proposed residential development, only scrub oak is found. A natural clearing is found at the site for the single family homes and the duplexes and only limited vegetation will need to be removed. The lower site where the townhomes are proposed is vegetated with scrub oak. E. Soils; Hepworth Paulick Geotechnical has prepared a Phase One and Two Environmental Audit. This has examined the soils for any contaminates. See Exhibit 8. See Exhibit 7 for soils study. 11 M. RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL The conditions set forth by the Conceptual submission approval granted by City County on April 22, 1996, and the response to those conditions are as follows; 1. All material representations made by the applicant and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. The Applicant acknowledges this condition and shall comply with all representations and conditions of approval. 2. The Applicant shall provide at final SPA review a detailed plan for retaining and revegetating the Doolittle Road cuts, disturbed areas or easements, and building envelopes. Such a plan shall include section details, plant species list and construction and planting schedules. The Applicant has provided within this final application detailed plans for Doolittle Drive vertical and horizontal alignment and retaining associated with the road cuts (see Sheet C6). Detailed landscape plans have been included also for the building areas (see Sheet L1). In the area of the realigned Doolittle Drive cuts, revegetation will consist of placement of adequate topsoil and finish grading. Seed mix will be that used by the County consisting of the following; 20% Mountain Brome 30% Western Wheatgrass 10% Indian Ricegrass 20% Slender Wheatgrass 20% Thickspike Wheatgrass 12 Nursery stock scrub oak will be added in the area of these cut slopes to replace the existing scrub oak lost during excavation. All revegetated areas will receive a temporary irrigation system which will be operational for the first two growing seasons after installation. 3. The trail alignment shall be staked in the field for review by Staff and the Commission at the time of final SPA review. The trail alignment must avoid as much existing vegetation as possible. Plans submitted at Final SPA review shall include proposed surface type and width. A plan for snowplowing and maintenance must also be provided for review. The Applicant shall complete staking of the trail alignment with adequate time for Staff and Commission review. Upon completion of staking, the Applicant shall contact staff to arrange a site meeting for the review. The trail will consist of a 8 foot wide re -cycled asphalt surface. Snowplowing and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Water Place Homeowners Association. Areas for snow stacking shall be staked with the alignment for review by Staff and Commission. 4. In no case shall the new residential structures be washed with light from any exterior light fixtures. Additional lighting needs for the trail and roadway must be specified at the time of Final SPA review. Lighting for the residential units shall be limited to wall mounted fixtures at exterior doors with down light elements. No landscape lighting will be provided. The main pedestrian circulation walk for the townhomes will receive 42 inch high bollard lighting with down light louvers over the elements. Parking for the townhomes will receive safety lighting in the form of architectural downlighting located on the car -port structure This 13 lighting will be non source oriented while providing adequate lighting at the pavement only. Roadway lighting has been identified on the plans (see Sheet Al) and will consist of used City of Aspen street lights. The pedestrian trail will receive landscape safety lighting consisting of 42 inch high bollards with light diffusing louvers to provide down lighting only. By lighting the trail and not Doolittle Drive, use of the trail will be promoted. S. Residents from adjacent residential areas should be included in the planning and design of the proposed park area. At the time of Final SPA review, the applicant should be prepared to address what level of participation is envisioned for the park area. As a part of this development the Applicant has agreed to reserve the land adjacent to Castle Ridge apartments and the Twin Ridge Drive intersection for future public use. this has come as a result of the neighborhood expressing their opinion that this would be an ideal location for either open space or recreation, possibly in the form of a children's play area. In addition to the land being reserved for this purpose, the Applicant will require that the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association participate in any future planning for this site. 6. The Phase II Environmental Audit must be included in the Final SPA submittal. The Phase Two Environmental Audit has been included in this application (see Exhibit 8). 7. Specific signage, speed limits, pedestrian treatments and traffic calming measures to address the mix of traffic on Doolittle Drive shall be approved by the City Engineer and submitted at the time of Final SPA review. 14 The Applicant has included signage identifying all pedestrian crossings, speed limit signs limiting vehicular speed to 20 miles per hour. Locations for these signs have been represented on the Doolittle Drive Plan and Profile. The pavement width has been decreased at the intersection of Doolittle Drive and the residential accesses to further reduce the traffic speed on Doolittle Drive. Aspen trees have been located at the intersection as they will allow for adequate sight lines while providing a canopy to the intersection which will give the perception of a restricted driving area without actually creating physical restrictions to the roadway, intersection, pedestrian crossing or sight lines and distances. This has been represented on the Final Landscape Plan. 8. The applicant shall submit elevations of all water treatment plant structures proposed for improvements at the time of Final SPA review. These elevations should be sufficient for Staff and the Commission to review the proposed improvements in the context of potential visual impact from proposed and existing development. The Applicant has provided elevations and floor plans for all Water Plant structure improvements (see Sheets C12, C13 and A13). 15 III. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - WATER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS A. Comparison to Conceptual Submission Programatically the proposed improvements to the Water Plan facility have not changed from that presented at Conceptual submission. However, within the Conceptual submission, no architecture was provided, only program information. Within this Final submission, architecture for the building improvements has been included. A product of this architecture is more refined square footage figures for the improvements. These improvements and the revised square footage figures are described below. B. Development Program The proposed development program calls for the construction and or expansion of the following existing facilities; 1. Reservoir expansion; The existing raw water storage reservoir, if dredged, has 15 acre feet or approximately 4.88 million gallons of holding capacity. The City's current peak day demand ramps up to 8 million gallons per day. Therefore, there is a need for the expansion of this reservoir in the near future to provide maximum daily demands. This will require the reservoir to be doubled in its current size to maintain continuous feed to the water treatment plant. 2. Second floor office expansion of approximately 2,674 square feet above the existing west plant and office building to include space for 5 offices, reception, men's and women's restrooms, conference room, records storage and map layout and work space as well as a new entry 16 lobby. Construction to the existing first floor will contain remodel of the main floor office space, new showers and locker room, new meter shop, new main entry and demolish the existing chemical feed room, 3. Interior remodel and reorganization of the east plant consisting of a new lunch room, remodel of the existing control room, new office space, and remodel of the existing shop space, 4. The existing 250 square foot chlorine storage building will be expanded by approximately 250 square feet to house a 1 ton chlorine scubber. 5. Expanded electric shed to include approximately 450 additional square feet added to the south end of the existing 1,100 square foot structure. This structure will be used to store Electric Department equipment and materials. The expansion will be constructed of metal to match the existing building. the only utility servicing the building will be electric. 6. Construction of new transformer storage yard to consist of grading a level platform only located adjacent to the electric shed. 7. Construction of a new Water Department storage building consisting of approximately 3,960 square feet and will be constructed of concrete block or steel with a metal roof. This structure will be a design build contract from the City and therefore finish design may vary slightly from that provided at this submission. In the event that substantial revisions are required, such as an increase in square footage by more than 20% or building height by more than that allowed within the Public Zone district. The front elevation will have standard bays with overhead doors in front of each bay. The. purpose of this building will be for Water Department vehicle and equipment storage. The only utility servicing the building will be electric. S. Designation of site for future storage building of approximately 2,000 square feet in size 17 G 9. Additional surface parking and approximately 12,000 square feet of I construction material storage to be located in two storage bins I constructed of three concrete block walls and a concrete floor, j 10. Associated infrastructure improvements as described below in Section III, B., 11. Water Plant Emergency Response Building consisting of a 550 square feet, one story building located at the south end of the affordable housing parking lot. 12. Security fencing consisting of chain link fencing around the water plant facility and green vinyl rapped chain link fence adjacent to the affordable housing. Fence height will be eight feet. All improvements have been described in greater detail in Exhibit 12. See Water Plant Improvements Site Plan, Sheet 3 of the drawing package for location of all improvements. C. General Site Improvements/Public Facilities 1. Access Doolittle Drive will be improved from Twin Ridge Drive to its completion at the Water Plant. Platform and pavement widths will be increased with asphalt width proposed at 22 feet. Gradient will be decreased to a maximum of 10%. Lastly the curve radius at the lower switchback will be increased to 100 feet making all design criteria meet City standard. This is described in greater detail in the Engineering Report, Exhibit 6. 2. Utilities 1. Water; A 12 inch diameter raw water line will be extended from the vicinity of the west treatment plant in the same trench 18 as the relocated 24 inch line and capped beyond the limits of the housing project for future extension into the Meadowood area. Also, the 8 inch diameter pressure line that will be tapped to serve the housing project will also be extended at its south end to add a fire hydrant at the treatment plants and provide pressure service to the plant buildings. 2. Sewer; An extension of the sewer line, probably in a 6 inch diameter size, to replace the current 4 inch service to the treatment plant site will be installed. This line represents about 600 linear feet of additional construction and is shown on the utility plans along Doolittle Drive from the housing site up to the plant area. 3. Private Utilities; Improvements no proposed in the upper plant site area will require minimal service which is available on site. 3. Security Security of the Water Plant facility has been and will continue to be a priority of operation. The addition of a residential use adjacent to the facility will require additional security. To separate the residential parcel from the facility a 5 foot high chain link fence will be installed. This fence will be vinyl coated with green vinyl to reduce visual impact. Closer to the actual facility and the reservoir, an eight foot high chain link fence will be installed. These have been represented on the Water Plant Site Development Plan. 19 IV. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT A. Comparison to Conceptual Submission Programatically the development remains identical to that presented at Conceptual submission. That application being conceptual in nature was based on City of Aspen GIS base survey information. That information was general in content. This submission provides a level of detail adequate for final review. This increase in the level of detail constitutes the primary difference between the conceptual submission and this final submission. For the purpose of this submission, a complete survey of the property has been completed identifying all above ground and below ground improvements, topography, vegetation and boundaries. This detailed survey has required revision of the site plan. While this revision is insubstantial, virtually all units have moved somewhat. The concept for the site plan has remained identical with the townhome (duplex and one triplex) units located on the- east side of Doolittle Road with remote parking and a pedestrian oriented "village". To the west of Doolittle Drive are the single family detached units, one existing to be remodeled and five new units. Doolittle Drive alignment has continued to be refined to its current alignment which meets all City design criteria. A concern at Conceptual review was the cut slope to the uphill side of the road realignment. Sections of the proposed treatment of this cut have been including in this application. Rol I ! A ditch exists a the west side of the single family detached units. The Applicant proposes to realign this ditch as well as pipe the realigned section to provide more room for unit location as well as a safer living environment for the residents. This realignment has been represented on the Site Development Plan. A. Development Program The proposed development program calls for the construction and sale and or rental of twenty two fully deed restricted affordable housing units plus the renovation, deed restriction and sale and or rental of one existing unit for a total of twenty three units. Six units will be in single family detached configuration while seventeen units will be in townhome configuration. Included in the development program is all associated infrastructure development and the demolition of the existing storage structure on the development parcel. The program outlined in Table One is the result of a survey of City employees. The survey resulted in a significant revision in program from that originally proposed by the Applicant. Specifically, the proportionate share of single family detached units has dropped in favor of smaller attached units which will sell for less money. Additionally, after several meetings with City Planning and Zoning commissioners and City Council members, as well as response to the conditions of Conceptual approval, the overall site plan has been revised to not only accommodate the revised program but represent a more pedestrian oriented neighborhood. Density has been reviewed in great detail, as has program, and has been revised. The original application requested approval for sixteen units while the Conceptual submission received approval for twenty three units. 21 Clearly, any development represents impacts to the project site, the surrounding neighborhood and to the community at large. The proposed development site represents relatively little impact when compared to other developments due to existing transit services, existing infrastructure, extremely low visibility from off site and compatible adjacent land uses. Impacts will be realized to the existing City of Aspen Water Facility and the adjacent housing projects due to increase traffic. This is mitigated however with the improvements proposed to Doolittle Drive and the inclusion of a van pool service. This will not eliminate the impacts, but will instead minimize them. Offsetting these impacts will be the fact that twenty three families, including emergency response personnel, will be housed within City limits. Currently, several emergency response personnel, specifically water facility employees and police, live outside the range of adequate response time, endangering the community. Having these personnel on site will significantly benefit the community. Additional benefits to the community will be realized through housing City employees. This development will allow the City to keep employees it otherwise could not keep, and attract employees it otherwise could not attract. With these community benefits in mind, as well as the limited impacts, it became apparent to all that participated in the design process (City P&Z, City Council, City Staff etc.) that the density on this site should be maximized. As a result, the development program has been revised to a total of twenty three units. While maximizing the density was a goal of the design team, accommodating neighborhood concerns was equally important. For this reason, the units located on the lowest portion of the site (at the intersection of Doolittle Drive and Twin Ridge Drive) were relocated at the time of Conceptual review and approval, to the upper portion of the site. This will eliminate the perceived density between Castle Ridge and Twin Ridge and provide perpetual open space between those two developments. Lotting for the proposed units has been represented on the Lotting Plan contained in the attached plan set. All units will be on individual, fee simple, lots which will transfer at sale with the unit. Table One Final Development Program Unit Type Total Units Bdnns/Unit Total Bdrms SF/Unit Total Living Total Gar/Stor SFD "A" 1 3 3 1105 1105 400 SFD `B" 3 4 12 1440 4320 1200 SFD "C" 1 4 4 1436 1436 400 Duplex "D" 3 3 9 1125 3375 675 Duplex "E" 3 2 6 936 2808 675 Tov inliouses: 2BR "F" 3 2 6 902 2706 675 1BR "G" 5 1 5 748 3740 1125 Studio "H" 3 1 3 600 1800 675 Totals 22 48 21,290 5,825 B. Unit Categorization Unit categories have been proposed after review with the Housing Authority and approved at Conceptual review that provide the City the greatest flexibility for future sale. The proposed Resident Occupied category is not intended to allow for greater sales prices, as the units will be sold at cost. Additionally, the standard appreciation cap as defined by the Housing Authority will be applied. The proposed categories for units are as follows in Table Two. 23 Table Two Unit Categorization Unit Type Number of Units Category Single Family "A" 2 RO Single Family "B" 2 RO Single Family "C" 2 RO Duplex "D" 3 RO Duplex "E" 3 RO Townhouse "F" 4 Cat. 4 Townhouse "G" 4 Cat. 4 Townhouse "H" 3 Cat. 4 C. Architectural Description Neighborhood setting is created by the placement and orientation of the living units. The porch and kitchen window of each of the 17 attached units looks out upon a central landscaped common space. The auto free common space is bordered by a broad sidewalk which serves each unit and provides a focus for social interaction and personal identity through individual front porches. Autos are clustered along Doolittle Drive in a bermed parking area, which minimizes asphalt and acts as a buffer to the street. Only three curb cuts penetrate Doolittle Drive for the housing; one for the 17 attached units, the second for five of the single family detached units located on the west side of the road and the third an individual driveway to a single family detached residence. This limitation of curb cuts will reduce conflicts with existing traffic. Massing of the buildings is characterized by simple volumes, gable roofs, cross gables and shed porches, all of which give a traditional "western" appearance to the development. Each unit has a one story front porch, 24 typically 6 feet deep, which breaks up the mass and reduces the visual scale. The attached dwellings are in groups of two or three with 10 to 20 foot spaces between, and the massing steps down from two story to one story at each end of the courtyard where the studio unit ("H") is located. The mass steps down once more, along the street where the small outbuildings, van shelter, mail kiosk, recycle center, and covered parking are located. Exterior materials include traditional choices of mostly natural materials. Siding will consist of horizontal lap siding, cedar shingles, rough sawn cedar plywood with battens, and untreated corrugated metal. Roofing will consist of asphalt shingles and untreated corrugated metal. Each of the units "A" through "H" will receive a different combination of these materials, which will help to add richness and variety to the overall exterior and to personalize the individual units. Mechanical systems will be based upon a natural gas fired boiler for space heating and domestic hot water. Space heating will be supplemented by passive solar exposure of most living areas, superinsulated roofs and efficient windows on the north side. Water saver fixtures and energy efficient appliances will be provided as standard. "Green" concepts in addition to those above which have been incorporated into the design include opportunity for home gardens, van pool service to downtown, recycle center for solid waste, preservation of as many mature trees as possible and landscaping with native drought tolerant plants and grasses. Basements will be provided for units 10 through 15 and units 18, 19 and 22. These units have been located on portions of the site which are sloping 25 making basements an advantage in grading the units to the site. These basements range in size from 450square feet to 698 square feet. The Applicant proposes to reserve the ability to provide basements for the balance of the units if this becomes desirable. Basements on the balance of the units would be completely sub -grade and only represent minimal Floor Area by the inclusion of an egress window. As the proposed development is a public project, 2 units have been designed to meet the American Disability Act requirements. These units are Unit 1 and Unit 17. Both are one story studio "IT' type units. Parking for these 2 units has also been designed to meet ADA requirements and represented on the Site Development Plan. D. Deed Restriction As previously stated, all proposed units will be fully deed restricted in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office Master Deed Restriction in effect at the time of Purchase Contract. This master deed restriction will then be converted to the individual deed for each property at the time of sale and recordation of the deed. A draft of the Master Deed Restriction has been provided (see Exhibit 9). E. Site Capacity The original application proposed development on both the upper and lower portions of the development parcel. Through neighborhood input, development of the lower parcel has been abandoned. All development is now confined to the upper parcel. This parcel consists of approximately 4.39 acres which includes .92 acres of road right of way leaving 3.47 net 26 developable acres. This yields a net unit per acre of 6.62 and a gross of 5.23 units per acre. As previously stated, six units are in single family detached configuration and seventeen units are in townhome configuration. As a comparison, the adjacent Twin Ridge development represents a gross unit per acre of 5.55 (25 units on 4.5 acres) while the adjacent Castle Ridge apartments are considerable higher. For this reason, the 5.02 units per acre of the proposed affordable housing development is similar or less than the density of adjacent developments. The range of recently developed projects within the City of Aspen is 3.84 units per acre at Williams Ranch (predominately single family detached) to 33 units per acre at the West Hopkins development (all townhomes). F. SPA Development Data Lot 4, City Thomas property, SPA Amendment 54 Acres Residential development parcel, SPA Amendment 2 4.39 Acres Total R.O.W. 0.92 Acres Open Space (dedicated common) 1.25 Acres Impervious Surface (roads, drives, buildings) 0.65 Acres Private Open Space (less dedicated common, R.O.W., and impervious surface) 1.57 Acres Maximum F.A.R. - Single Family Lots 0.50 Maximum F.A.R. - Attached Dwelling 0.75 Maximum Building Height (to midpoint) 28 feet Parking 2.56/unit G. Conditional Use Within PUB Zone Pursuant to the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations, affordable housing is a Conditional Use within the Public Zone District. The specific 27 requirements have been addressed within Section IV., Review Requirements, D. Conditional Use within the original application. H. General Site Improvements/Public Facilities 1. Access Access to the development parcel is via existing Doolittle Drive. In its existing condition, Doolittle Drive does not meet City standards for pavement width, gradient, and turning radii. To accommodate the proposed development, the Applicant has submitted plans for re -alignment and widening of the road. These improvements will bring Doolittle Drive into 100% compliance with City standards. These improvements have been described in detail in the attached Engineering Report. Maintenance of Doolittle Drive currently is sufficient for Water Facility operations but not adequate for residential purposes. Upon development of this proposal, the road will require an increase in maintenance consistent to that of residential neighborhoods. Off site impacts and improvements have been addressed within the attached Engineering Report. These improvements have been defined for lower Castle Creek Road as well as the Maroon Creek/Highway 82 intersection. As a result of studying these required improvements as well as the existing and projected traffic counts, a pro-rata share of the traffic impacts have been assigned to the proposed development. The Applicant will pay the pro-rata share of these improvements which is estimated to be $5,052.63 (see Engineering Report). 2. Grading and Drainage Due to the existing nature of the site, being on a minor ridge and knoll in an area that accumulates little runoff volume under natural conditions, the Water Place housing development will not result in any changes to historic runoff patterns or volumes in the area. This has been addressed in detail in the attached Engineering Report., 3. Landscaping Landscaping will be provided for all units as well as common areas. The main element of this landscaping will be a water feature located within the landscaped common area. This water feature will pick up existing surface, untreated water, divert the water to the stream shown on the Landscape Plan and return the water to the existing channel. Plant material along this water feature consist of native material such as red twig dogwood and cottonless cottonwood. Landscaping will consist of native seed mix with wildflowers in the outlying areas with scrub oak, aspen and serviceberry. Areas adjacent to the units will receive bluegrass seed (we are currently investigating a drought tolerant fesue that performs like a lawn when watered and mowed but requires much less water to replace the bluegrass), shrubs such as wood's rose, alpine current, potentilla and snowberry as well as aspen and limited flowering crabapples for accents. See Landscape Plan. The proposed landscaping will provide "starter" landscapes for each unit that can be added to by the owner. However, adequate plant material and ground cover will be provided so no additional work will be required if this is not in the interest of the owner. Space will be provided within each lot 29 for a garden and owners will be encouraged to take advantage of this space. Screening the view of the parking lots from Doolittle Drive will be accomplished by sloping the parking lot to decrease finish grade by two feet below natural grade in the area closest to Doolittle Drive. Additionally, a two foot berm will be graded into the space between the parking and the road. This will provide four feet of overall grade barrier between the parking and the road. Trees and shrubs will be located in the area of the berm to further screen the parking. 4. Easements All existing easements have been shown on the SPA Plan while new easements have been shown on the Site Development Plan and the Utility Plan. 5. Open Space Within the development parcel, dedicated common open space has been provided. This space provides a pedestrian link to all the townhome units while providing a play area for children. Kitchens within the individual townhome units have been oriented to the open space for ease of supervision of children at play. The paved walk has been designed to allow for bicycle riding, rollerblading etc. in a loop configuration without having to go out onto the street. A central water feature will provide an amenity for residents and has been landscaped with natural riparian vegetation. The balance of the landscaping within the open space has been left open with grass only to allow for active play/recreation. 30 Included in the dedicated common open space parcel is the parking for the townhome units. Each units is provided two parking spaces, one of which is covered, with an enclosed storage unit. Additionally, three guest spaces have been provided. 6. Van Pool/Trash Collection and Mail Service Van pool service will be provided to downtown Aspen. A pick up shelter/kiosk will be provided and has been shown on the site Development Plan. Trash dumpsters have been located at each end of the parking lots and are contained in an enclosed structure. Each structure will provide space for one 3 yard dumpster and 3 re -cycle bins. Mail pick up will be by means of a multiple box unit located centrally to the project. This box unit will be contained within its own structure. Its location has been represented on the Site Development Plan while the architectural drawings for this, the van pick up kiosk and the trash enclosure has been provided in the architectural drawings. 7. Utility Service a. Water The site is located on the boundary of the City's gravity system and the pumped pressure zone for Meadowood. Service to both the townhome site and the single family detached units will be via a main extension from and existing 8 inch diameter main line located in Doolittle Drive that is fed from the pressure side of the Meadowood pump station. The proposed service is described in greater detail in the attached Engineering Report. 31 At this time, the Applicant is looking into the potential of providing raw water rather than domestic for irrigation purposes. b. Sewer Service will be provided to the proposed development via a main line extension of approximately 825 feet to an existing collection main located in the east end of the upper loop of the Castle Ridge housing site. A proposed sewer main extension is shown in the attached Utility Plan. The proposed service is described in greater detail in the attached Engineering Report. C. Private Services All private utility services are currently located within the project site with capacity to service the proposed development. The proposed services have been described in greater detail in the attached Engineering Report. 8. Outdoor Lighting All outdoor lighting will comply with the City lighting code. Locations for outdoor lighting has been shown on the Site Development Plan in the attached plan set. Four bollard fixtures with downlight louvers have been located along the pedestrian walk in the open space area. Three additional fixtures have been located at pedestrian and vehicular intersection areas. It is anticipated that these fixtures will be used Aspen street lights. Additional parking lighting will be provided by means of fixtures mounted on the car port structures. These fixtures will provide downlight, non source oriented lighting which will illuminate the paving only and provide a safe parking area. 32 9. Parking/Transportation As a result of the extensive design meetings with City staff, P&Z and Council, a site plan which provided remote parking and increased pedestrian access was created. Parking for the seventeen townhome units has been located in a double loaded lot accessed from, and parallel to, Doolittle Drive which provides a total of 35 spaces. /This quantity of parking provides for 2 spaces per one, two, and tree bedroom unit and one space per studio as well as and four guest spaces. This parking has been located approximately twenty five feet from the Doolittle Drive pavement edge, allowing for slight berming and landscaping to minimize the visual impact. One bank of the double loaded parking lot will be covered as well as provide storage for the residents (see Site Development Plan). Parking for the single family homes will be in garages which will hold two cars. The driveways have been sized to accommodate two additional cars parked tandem to the garage for guest spaces. Located centrally to the development is a van pick up. RFTA van pool service will be provided to the residents with service to and from the project and downtown Aspen. As the residents of this development will be City employees, even though spouses or other dependents may work at other locations, a substantial number of residents will be leaving for, and returning from the same location at the same time, making this development an ideal candidate for effective van pool service. As previously stated, a kiosk will be provided as a waiting area (see Site Development Plan). RFTA currently provides bus service to the immediate area with pick up/drop off located at the bottom of Doolittle Drive. A pedestrian link will be provided from the development parcel to this site for easy access. This walk has been shown on the Site Development Plan in its conceptual location. Its final location will be staked on the ground for review by City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. I. Homeowners Association A homeowners association will be created for the maintenance of common open space areas, parking areas, internal roads and emergency access. Additionally, this association will pay for common trash pick up, and taxes on common space. A draft of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws were provided within the original application. These have been included in this application as well. J. Requested Variances As the architectural drawings represent, the units have been designed to maximize livability while provide the greatest level of efficiency within the least amount of square footage. The net livable square footage of the proposed units is less than that specified as a minimum by the 1995 Affordable Housing Guidelines. A variance is requested to allow for the decrease square footage for the following units; 34 Table Three Unit Sizes Type Required S.F. Proposed S.F. Single Family "A" 11400 1,092 Duplex "D" 1,200 1,098 Duplex "E" 950 936 Townhouse "F" 950 902 It should be noted that the net livable square footage figures in Table One and above do not include the enclosed storage at the parking lot which is approximately 125 square feet per townhome unit. The duplex and triplex structures require a 0 foot side yard setback. Duplex structures will have one five foot side yard setback. Unit 8, the interior unit in a triplex structure will have two 0 foot side yards. This does not require a variance from the side yard setback requirements of the Public Zone District as they are set for all Conditional Uses by the adoption of a Conceptual and Final Development Plan, pursuant to Article 7, Division 9, Planned Unit Development. The setbacks represented on the Lotting Plan are as follows; Table Four Setbacks Unit type Front Side Rear Single Family detached 0 0, 5 total 5 Duplex 5 0, 5 total 10 --- Triplex 5 0 10 35 L. Construction Schedule It is currently anticipated by the Applicant that construction will begin immediately upon completion of the approval process and the recordation of all documents. This may permit construction of certain infrastructure items and Water Plant improvements to begin as early as fall of 1996 with some improvements which do not require land use approval begining August of 1996. construction of the Water Plant storage buildings will begin September 1996. Construction of the housing units is scheduled to begin October of 1996. This work will require approximately 14 months to complete. Water Plnat office space contruction will begin May 1997 for completion August 1997. M. Fire Access/Prevention Fire access has been provided within the townhome site via a 20 foot wide dedicated fire access which loops through the site providing access to within 75 feet from the furthest point of a structure. The surface of this fire access will be made up of 10 feet of hard paving (concrete or asphalt) and 10 feet of a subsurface grass paving system. Specifications of the grass paving system will be provided to the Fire Marshall for final approval prior to construction. All residential units within this development will contain a fire sprinkler system. 36 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS A. SPA (Section 7-804) This application requests review of Final Submission. The review requirements have been met and are addressed below. The specific review requirements pursuant to Section 7-804 C & D have been addressed within the Proposed Development sections of this application. B. Subdivision (Section 7-1001) The specific review requirements pursuant to Section 7-1004 sub -section C, Review Requirements have all been addressed within the Proposed Development section of this application as well the drawing package (also see Engineering report Exhibit 6). C. GMQS Exemption Section 8-104C) Pursuant to Section 8-104 C City Council can exempt developments from Growth Management if it complies with exemption clauses. Sub -section C of this category provides for exemption for affordable housing. Based on this provision, the Application requests exemption from GMQS based on the fact that this proposal represents 100% affordable housing. D. Conditional Use (Section 7-301) Affordable housing is a specified conditional use within the Public zone district. This application meets the standards applicable to all conditional 37 uses as stated in Section 7-304 of the Code (see Sections III and IV of this application). The production of family oriented sales units is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and Community Plan. As well, this particular location is directly adjacent to existing affordable housing (Castle Ridge, Twin Ridge and Mountain Oaks) therefore is consistent and compatible with the immediate vicinity. The design of the development has minimized adverse effect by locating units to minimize visual impacts, providing adequate parking and providing for adequate pedestrian and vehicular circulation. As presented in the General Site Improvements/Public Facilities section of this application, adequate public facilities exist to service this proposed development. Additionally the community will benefit by emergency response personnel living at this project instead of downvalley. E. Special Review (Section 7-404B) Parking, open space and the dimensional requirements governing this development are established by Special Review pursuant to the Public zone district. Parking for the seventeen townhome units has been located in a double loaded lot accessed from and parallel to Doolittle Drive which provides two spaces per unit and three guest spaces. Parking for the single family units will be provided via two car garages. Additionally guest spaces will be provided in the driveway tandem to the garage and hold two cars. 38 Open space has been provided by means of two parcels specifically designated for open space as well as all space within the individual lots less the unit and driveway. The minimum lot size for a townhome is approximately 2,000 square feet and for a single family detached is approximately 5,850 square feet. The maximum FAR based on a requested is 0.50 for a single family detached dwelling and 0.75 for an attached dwelling. These ratios will provide limited unit expansion within the building envelope. The maximum building height is 28 feet measured from existing grade to half way from the facia to the roof ridge. The setback dimensions shall be per the Lotting Plan. Building envelopes have been identified rather than conventional setbacks. These envelopes will ensure that any future expansion of units does not adversely affect adjacent units. Setback dimensions can be found in Table Four of this application. F. 8040 Greenline Review (Section 7-500) Due to the horizontal and vertical location of the Water Plant property with relation to the City of Aspen, 8040 Greenline Review is required. The minimum submission requirements, while consistent with contents of other review sections, are contained within this application. The review standards are addressed below. This application requests 8040 Greenline Review approval for all deed restricted housing units as well as the Water Plant improvements. The 39 i project has been designed as a Specially Planned Area to take advantage of the site and minimize the impacts of development. All new roads and deed restricted units will be constructed by the Applicant. Information as to the design of these components has been included in the application. To further minimize the impact of development on this site, all units have been reduced in size to the minimum for a livable floor plan. No development shall be permitted at, above or 150 feet (150') below the 8040 Greenline unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate to soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. This application has demonstrated the development capabilities of the proposed site. All development has been proposed within the portions of the site considered suitable for development. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. A grading and drainage plan and drainage report has been included in the Application to the City. Based on these plans, all on site and off site drainage patterns will be preserved. Runoff generated by the proposed development will be contained and released at historic rates. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. 40 The proposed use is strictly residential and will comply with all Clean Air Regulations in effect at the time of approval. It should also be noted that the proposed development is located near an existing RFTA transit route an is within close proximity to the Aspen downtown area minimizing the requirement for auto traffic. The result of this proposed development not being constructed is that those families which would purchase and live here, will be forced down valley and must commute. This will have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. 4. The design and location of any development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Substantial effort has been made to "fit" the roads, walks and structures to the site. As the Grading and Drainage Plan depicts, this has been accomplished as grading is minimal for the construction of the road while still providing a road that meets City standard. Structures have been individually designed to their respective sites, allowing for units to accommodate grade changes. As an example, the townhome site contains approximately eight feet of grade change. The units accommodate this grade change by stepping into the slope rather than requiring a flat bench for siting of the unit. The result is significantly reduced impact to the site. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practical, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation, and natural land features. As stated above, the roads, walks and structures have been carefully designed to minimize grading. The applicant proposes to construct all deed restricted units. By doing this, the design and construction can be controlled to minimize site disturbance. The program alone lends itself to sensitive site placement, being predominately detached units and duplexes rather that multi -family. The design of the specific units, as described above minimizes grading. There is little vegetation on the site in the area 41 of proposed development. Therefore impacts to vegetation are minimal. Large vegetation such as the mature oak have been saved as a result of the location of the proposed structures. The natural land features will be preserved. Again, this is accomplished by means of sensitive architectural design and placement of the structures as well as roads. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. While the deed restricted units have been clustered into relatively tight development areas. The clustered deed restricted units are adjacent to the Castle Ridge Condominiums meaning visual impact will be minimal. As explained above, the structures have been designed to utilize the grade rather than ignore it, resulting in a proposed development that will preserve the overall land forms of the subject property. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. The proposed density decreases as the elevation up the site increases, providing more open space between structures. The structures are predominately single family detached, minimizing the bulk as compared to multi -family structures as with Castle Ridge. All structures will be a maximum of two stories. Maximum allowable building height has not been approached as the units all fall several feet short of the maximum. This has been accomplished by stepping the units into the slope and by shortening the second story wall top plates and extending the roof line. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. As Section III, Proposed Development - Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Section IV, Proposed Development - Affordable 42 Housing Project states, all utilities are available and have sufficient capacity to service the project. 9. Adequate roads are available to service the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. As Section III, Proposed Development - Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Section IV, Proposed Development - Affordable Housing Project states, the roads providing service to this development parcel have the capacity to service the proposed development. Schmueser Gordon Meyer has provided a traffic impact report contained in the application. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. All roads have been designed. to Pitkin County Standards for the quantity of units being served which will provide adequate service. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. The walk along Doolittle Drive will be within a dedicated R.O.W. providing public use. This proposed development has also included additional Common Space as represented in the application. These have been dedicated to public use. 43 Mapping ARTIST'S RENDERING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DRAWING INDEX Cl EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP C2 S.P.A. MAP C3 FINAL PLAT C4 DOOLITTLE DRIVE PLAN C5 DOOLITTLE DRIVE PROFILE C6 UTILITY LAYOUT FLAN C7 UTILITY LAYOUT PLAN C8 UTILITY DETAILS C9 UTILITY DETAILS C10 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C11 WATER STORAGE BLDG. ELEVATIONS C12 ELECTRIC STORAGE BLDG. EXPANSION ELEVATIONS Al SITE PLAN 'AFFORDABLE HOUSING A2 BLDGS #1-9 MAIN FLOOR PLANS A3 BLDGS #1-9 UPPER FLOOR PLANS A4 BLDGS #10-17 MAIN FLOOR PLANS A5 BLDGS #10-17 UPPER FLOOR PLANS A6 BLDGS #10-17 BASEMENT FLOOR OPTIONS A7 BLDGS #18-22 MAIN FLOOR PLANS AB BLDGS #18-22 UPPER FLOOR PLANS A9 BLDGS #1-17 ELEVATIONS - COMMONS A10 BLDGS #1-17 ELEVATIONS - PRIVATE YARDS A11 BLDGS #18-22 ELEVATIONS - DOOLITTLE DR. Al2 OUT BUILDINGS PLANS - ELEVATIONS A13 WATER PLANT WEST OFFICE BLDG. ADDITION A14 SITE SECTIONS L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN DRAVW+ DAW (i CxCKVI> s ALL cormr&fl CCU 1994P I. U) z W � N W C� > W 0-3 as o0c �a �, t� zU) �m IL p I- _ W J W Q co) W Q ILL F— L U. O W Q V � Q GIBSON-REN( A A C H I i E C 1 S I I0 E. H1HAN Pb 302 AMEN COLCOADO 61411 Ial.sus+w TAcw"A IOI.,ISSN, Po MA I» 111N N1LLOW f"I SHIS IO) M"01 EACSMILR M.>:.A4" 410ET1: AO ASPEN VALLEY op AX. HOSPITAL v N Of I r 1 Ai� Y_ > 7 �iik.... . ..... . if A: 'A J, I wo- 2 V Z ear.... . ...... 'Z amf mu f I 7 �22 ' . .- -\� I — �VSTNV'YARD (;4ylo R E. - EA/0 j, A J_ hi ZZ J; ...... ...... if lo, . . . . . . . . . . . . . MOM• S45C Aw mom C17Y OF ASROV GEOGRAPHArA ##VRAMION SMEM (GIS) 'PIP A mmEyom SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. 118 W. Oth Street &** 200 �GM Glenwood Springc Colorado 81001 somk4mam — (a7O) 045-IM (FAX 945-6948) eOFMON MUM Aspen, Colorado (970) 925-6727 WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT W// REWSION a NIF BY roe No. 95=4 EXISTING CONDITIONS Drvwn by.- KG V 2 :J/m '96: KG j AIASUSUSSOV REWSMS .6114A6; RA/ccots:J120,196 .. .......... .. P AW tr' JH C-1 Ciy Aoprmw and Accspfsncs' Ce.tn,<o.:o� cf Pso%cation o'd O..nsrnnip: GRAPHIC SCALE 7hb hW*by of one n oeokati0ns M# Cltl onO�Y of � Clty of apwoad and occsptsd �' KNONTS that the ao, twirp~ hv soV nwMh M thnM d cwrfOr l nes n ~n 100 00 "a l00 a00 AOpsn, tb/s __ dsl' o/ —_• 19Da. kV—, County. Ca/wvob, desa+Dd os 0 tal 4, City lhanrat Pbroprfy Suba6W.;� ' Ccspfian, C71 of Awsn, sAO- co—ty of P1tt.H, Staff of co.dvdo. jN fEt1) Most., o, tyui torn* Cy test Pnsssnft ,b+d out, P+ 14 or4 sa.dd.-.rdw b'v sours mto /ndirdrnof Loft as sAo"n nsrsmr o^d h sours as 1 imb 100 n isrd Plat wctr Pbes bbuiny PrvfscL h fns CIO' of Aspen, County THE CITY THOMAS' PROPERTY T °'�` �� °�"°'f Assn C« * d P*hw Saari o/ Cabinda uflity a4 /OOdRO• 1ww+ntWrft /"Own boson A0I Yfify one p r. �t a a �. M j..- .' MV h Fhs sAfcs of 04 CAW* svW A00019W d ft"I taunb. Cobnb ftk ' l"' L' ~ &4* d s✓.wI �cf M Aofocds C~w�fn�ft &vd h #4 OW1cs o/ lM drat and Mraoruw d AW-67 VISION A" KEPT T ord Rsaof M� Ab. a4 rocordd a A ,S'UBDI SCALE 1 "= 100' a� 0" csd ROC~ rni day d A0. O1W f My. C1 2j0.00' lQ Q d1' N 0TJ0 J. Ct 91A�' J4.J0' 17J4 Jd1!' N?JJ6"3d• W 20'4I'Il' cJ 4300? N 57m, W �r iJY AIZ00' JR 1J' 13.15' 29,tr S 90*J W £ ?T YS Cam___ 5a0k __ 1A01' �J �7a4 N 1902't E J2054 C7 ca 10-V 5R00' 26.41' I�l47 1152' 72a' ?al t 1' N 175J' f tAAr N 03'J4 W JO l6 !a•J4' _ 50IV. am. &J21 N to. ji W _ ..._ .. CIO . _. CJI_111r..• SO PO _ .. _ . /d10'-_ --Air _11q' 1I4d N Jt 0 . W ...... f5w,14 . CI?. so. AO', 2a,/J' Uir 11¢T N 71'1J7t' W _. ?916JT _ . _.._ iQotl N Jr 1Y Or4fI,7 C11, S1ClAp ?7r16'_. ... I,x3d.........__ 27lS' S a? 17 4' W...... Orfrfe' C)1 _ J7R00 27f12 tJ33 . ?701 S ?41Gli4!" W 0t %!t c/a J7U 00 2ZOJ ass? ?> a�.. s ;rstJa'.w 04 n C17 J)b. ...... ts0 leis' N.50' S P/awlrp ckwetor Aowwad : The A -WO Pkf d Wow Pbcv NwSAw ww opanbvd by Nw OW of AV- Aiwwriw OAwc CMs oby of AQ, for#& Prainiv ai.ctof My (ipiws 's Apww,ot• Aeb l&w/ PW of new Pbos hb rwi'ba row qW--d by fM Ary OVA— of Nw AG �ei N orb' &v4-- arrMroabrr d n0ir - ??05.10' 1 Ifcww«f WeIbwrw+ce oaryia+y lb ebb Store d Cb�brootr do" bwvby cw*y Met Me i co0s of A0*v cow ly Mow 0# of Ow • I isr and � ord it Ilea oiby Nw 06, a Moen• Sfofs Of Coiorvah ) ) iw. awn y of Awn ) rho tworokv hstnrrwo sys sd+wobgpod baton ms tots doy Of , f99J, by Wbww my band ad ofi&'br ase; M' convniksi' o•/arss Notary A,bk LOT 4 = r I •� SLs6viaCr'i pvbi7ca(o: ; KawwM R W #wk Av&m mW Ld"d + wb 1—t* 49.41 AC.t orbs' Wof OW pM of NW Wes Abw M OV A*W(, ww pnparud by 1. W bwder 1W otW^4W06 .14 Met Mv, beebbe a boarrbry, and oMv Awf w on Wo 0vftA r one& shown w+W 0WmW shoos hoe& Mot Ws sarw " lased on inrxsr v 000su,%Vv M rtfnnsd w+aM my uPs bblwV^ aM aabncs �S cabrnob Ab- s AAA ►974 Mir J4 Mbob 51. / VIM fW&W ONMy Nw( Of *W of» ear oboWWe bow'dwy b ' in rbwn Wawf, I Agar sot OW bad and and Win __ obl' of f99a. I e /40Vd17/• KanwW R, Mon LS I5710 R 100 00' T ?aiaa4' L 24174' ' ' L1 A 1TSO T7' R 200.00' T — 4-1 ' L t .y, � L 97.19' i jury � WER PLACE ly, MXISYNG SIT -77 siS �n ►3�`;,�1 j t . ` L 157.a2' • \ y��� �7__ LOT 3 yt �' G51ZE RIDGE \ 1 �1►i' �( LII— b L /�� Ar .�„� s Cc1 •t 9jS� • �. s �a� 79Cf U � �\ • Zcp ` 1 • 1 `f T` Ll9 Af7�p'tl Sj SAL a t L2/ y 'gyp L23 / r tax • "� .� 262.69, yEy SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. 118 W. 8th Str"L &*a 200 Glenwood Colorado 81001 �GM. -- -- (303) 0461M (FAX 946-5048) GORDON bEM IA*pstk Colorado (303) 02"727 CITY THOMAS PROPERTY pie ; RENSKAV [M7£ 9►' .aob No. 950 3GL1 FINAL &vwn by. MH an:< 6110195 PLA T Ar JH C3 0 NEW GALE w,� Tom°, lef>n 1 ..ti, i 400 \ To �� Kq 0 4?n Z ` TeD . ..�,��� - ... . ., . r. r.•....n.,,. ,.rr..�. ,t.n �,✓�.. W.a.n•w.�r. . . ., .�..,r �.. •.u..ra....r,n.....�w,apnrM�w�.arW.,u...✓rvrv+lw e+✓nrorw,.•rww✓✓ ..rw,.we4wW.w�uwu+• rr. s-m...-....w .. MA TCN LINE TO f / CUP'S \ . 1 e1m v/nved Demotions — 81�j0.6 1 1 RAW WATER ONERSION �7 ` 1 1 AH .511E WATER FEA7U e — NEW FENCE AO %;.• I BACKWASH POND 19.80 ,. �. 1 n r C.DEPE S7VR4GE DING aPANSION NEW G4' , , , , SCALE: 1 "= 30' / GRAPHIC SCALE J / s • w s « 1 / I Imb - 80 ri . / J 1 J 1 J ! i r 1 1 I J' J / 1 nrar ti c14r£ er Joe �. 95=4 8Ct�1AUE8ER GORDON MEYER INC. `'� UTILITY � �' C m W. am serest. "a 200 WA TER TREA TMENT PLANT IMPRO VEMENTS tee. 6114196 Glenwood Colorado 91a01 (970) 945-1 0 'a=AX M-50") AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT - - LAY—O IlT PLAN , �. ,,f, Aspen, Colorado (970) 925-0727 � -------- -------------------;------- w,.R new -ring w� ��i �� %i Ili , !� �il ■� ��; ELEVATIONON Vol EAST EXTEROR MATERIALS: 1. Wood Shingle (Stained) 2. Plywood and Batten (Painted) 3. Horizontal Siding 4. Corrugated Metal a. Galvanized (Dull) b. Untreated (Rusty) S. Asphalt Shingle 6. Exposed Concrete 7. 1 x Cedar Trim 8. 2 x Redwood Railings 9, 2 x "Trex" Decking 10. 6 x 6 Cedar Post . ■ . ■ ■ "MOW Irlw. __ ur�rirl rrur�. rulr_nurrr. IMAM 1u41 �) ' - u�� '■ ■1 / !1'r�d'1� rNr I wrrrl wrr11 111r �� �,v"� �,'����� .. ��/'.. .. !, Y� I►��,�%r�� i�Iwl rN■YY ■uw i.l wr.wr I Irr/r .. low ' 'A y uul l.wrw --- errs u- ' /.�i!061 �F -fie ��ll Iw r_r0 IrrW YU .\ � / �It .r -' . L..r.�srs.�.,..n. �.. ._ - �•,. ;(. r1Ir1�._a1_rr wlrlr..-.► i�t �, f�`vGQ� ��T%1��� !1 IrrwuuF/wrrurl! ar'1rirrrrunmu : �,ll/ �� � _..._.■ •ti 1/ �/� ,I�_. .l� III/�._� (iiliil�li �_i�i ;lr�i%i�jr�il mooll -�r1ia/l.h�u ��iW WN—AN �� N!1- �J�fl �'M ��Iiillir. rM1� i iiw #21 #18 (Behind) a/�n �.I rr l 1, , i r: :�u'r ��i�'�10,��,i.��!: .r . � . � #19 (Behind) • #21 „c SOUTH ELEVATION DOOLITTLE DRIVE VIEWS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SOUTH s •s 7 -- 7 10 10 ' 6 r L i n L L- `;i 6 a / WEST WEST SOUTH RECYCLE (2) MAIL 1 .�Cy tf It1 1 I ' I' TRASH s XES 0 PLAN PLAN 4b. s 7 7 4b. 10 1 6 WEST SOUTH VAN '6-O"K-UP WEST ELEVATION SOUTH .ELEVATION EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FLOOR PLAN Zoir. f Rec ye lr. vAR'*0j' .OUTBUILa.DINGS EXTEROR MATERIALS: �- I • Wood Shingle (Stained) 2• Plywood and Hatter (Painted) 3. Horizontal Siding 4. Corrugated Metal n.• _ a. Galvanized (Dull) oP b. Untreated (Rusty) °"tt CKCKM 3. Asphalt Shingle SCAtf 6. Exposed Concrete COP"JGPIT (C) 7. 1 x Cedar Trim 8. 2 x Redwood Railings 9. 2 x "Trex" Decking 10. 6 x 6 Cedar Post 8120• a110 -- 81001. _DOOLITTLE DR �v1e 021 UNIT 8 UNIT C SOUTH ELEVATION SITE SECTION 2-2 AH #2 *3 M4 — Nd - N8— — N7 lea so UNIT H UNIT E UNIT D UNIT E UNIT Q UNIT F UNIT G UNIT F UNIT H SOUTH ELEVATION 8140• a13o• 6120. .1 m ri no M w arse -- -----•---- -----' *4 --- - - - silo, .. UNIT D UNIT E 8100• -- ----090. EAST ELEVATION -- - -- --- - EAST ELEVATION � � -- • - - _� --- --- - __ --- --- 8070• VFW 60' CASTLE CREEK SITE SECTION 1-1 SITE SECTIONS )0) c)s S%s FAcsreLc w) sls sH) PO WX )II IIIN WILLOW No) TILLMce cotokAnO EN)) )0) 77e "07 FACSrmd )0) 778 Ks! )NF) T A14 PARKI 4r d++o -- - ' •'' /� .- ;,� ' N` 1. at 1ST - A L C_ � ••\\ \" ._` �\ \ , ( '�• see .M' �� �^ 1 . do 20 ._Plant Schedule...:\\ f or'tl�Ub T'R�V1-olal�4 AaP�r-i ►ri"-2%4,''c�u.., � •�,\ \�'� � \ \V t �� � ' � / . \ MA t- v.y I (ZA P i A NT1 I« MIAt' CR.^t.l7 Q•!�y" G+1L. � � .\ •` \� \ ` •\ � '•'� ` , j .` i �' / �r � + �OrVLVfa ,�NdUvPIP'o+.-t,�. �orroN�-by�a coTTo►-+wocp 2" UL ncGA f Ut-1 6 CN dL.+Uo.+•' GG P�i.��t �•1'K �1� !o IZ' (�T 20 \ \ \ \ �, Q \ -- .. QV�I¢�'b 6�+Mb� �.. t �Fv D• orl+c +3' b�L. 7� � � ,� � Q� �, \ � 'b_ ^•t^Ct,�•N�F+�psR i4LN I roUN �3epv+cplese+t�¢Y u �25 � `� \ '�• edOrOLHn�w^ PAILornLL-^ Jl .4v Q 111044 LWO NrjOL-ON 11" Rfw-,A rW 16, Gi76VVAPto N rio *p •*rev rYFVW I'I MO NrAW e-N1lMG t;s w reII WHms.Ar"eAAA•s ►aid +N �'►+�+ R/cC ex��. 2a:5 � Nb�R WHes�•r'aR•4�S . 20,jr rN r' orl r•e W H Mo,4r*^A-I S IJo rest. 1. AL-4I-AN0 CArX AftrAew To FZG�G/V>✓ f.1VDDRbKOIJN/J /R!R/b�17oaJ 0 lo' S0' too Pr 1 py'leoTiF•16 e--,.e-FUIb OAK. A .•Typical Unit landscaping-- Co�Q v+o"- �' LiG4►r R�sr LANDSCAPE PLAN Z N 0 WW QJ Jm ao oc � WD QLL 3" a ( I BSON' ... 11 nl tw. N.f ANt NC(III l—. wo t.ne r M W+n a 1•.�(9/1 5w 1 L1 Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 City of Aspen Pre -Application Conference Summary Project I0 O L i T T Applicants Representatn Representative's Phone _ Owner's Name 'Type of Application N s w Planner Date The applicant has been requested to respond to the following items and provide the following reports: Land Use Code Sect ion 7 /o -o Referral Agencies The review is: (1'&Z only))l (CC onl�) (P&Z and CC) Public Hearing: (yes (no) � Deposit for the Application Review: 2rs!L�-d,—Ls) Referral agency flat fees:& -25Z TOTALDEPOSIT (Additional hours are billed at a rate—of'5163/hr.) ollowing luforu1nlian: ill. Went. address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant the name, address and telcp1lonc number of the representative. review of the application a__ (D 4 he complete application packet and maps. Kplaining the request (existing conditions and proposed uses), including I legal description of the property. vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. siteplanshall include property boundaries, lot size, proposed access, and physical features drains ewa s, streams, rivers, etc. 'these items need to be submitted if circled: n rvi r f .n c�ihior•I prope..rty with addreSSCS. a List of adjacent property owners within 300 fec� ,L. ,. r . _ b. Site photos. C. Proof of legal access to the parcel. d. Historic Preservation Commission review/approval. 0�0 A, ��Rc; V�T� PFKCr Exhibit 3 M X THE CITY OF ASPEN OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Cite of' Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Aspen CO, 81611 To Whom it may concern: The Stevens Group Inc. is hereby authorized to represent the City of Aspen on planning and zoning matters pertaining to the Water Place housing development. Sincerely, Steve arwick Assistant City Manager 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORAW 81611 • PHONE 303.920.5212 • FAx 303.920.5119 Printed on recycled paper Exhibit 4 A�CCVIUVU ALL............ Reception No .... .. .... ........V 1.1" &........ All., ......................... ......... ..... ........................, ....1............................... �.............. ':. '....' .: �..'�: �... ............... Recorder. Madet}:is 12llj day ofFAJCernt)0.1',1972, between VIVIANNE TllO1NIAS TRI`lIIiLE �,Qf the , County of and state of ^tn7`)ndd-, o tfrthe first part, and rTHE CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado municipal corporation of the County of Pi t k i n and state of Colorado, of the second part, WITNESSETH, That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLAnS and other good and valuable consideration to the said part y of the first part in hand paid by the said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha S remised, released, sold conveyed and QUIT CLAIL ED, and by these presents do e S remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIiVi unto the said part y of the second part, i t S bCjrs, successors and assigns, forever, ail the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said Fart y of the first part ha S in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lyhig and being in the' County of Pi tk i n and State of Colorado, to wit: See Exhibit A attached hereto. There is also conveyed all water and water rights, all ditch and ditch rights used in connection therewith or appurtenant thereto, in the ratio or proportion of 79.38/110.38 acres encompassed in the 1"larolt Ranch at the time of closing of the within sale. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, Lnterest and claim whatsoevei .f the said part of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behao`, of the said part y of the second part, its SibVr9 gr1�1sR its forever% IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part y of the f'-st p ' ha S reunto set he ' acid and seal the day and year first above written. e........................ .... _...................] Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of IV IANNE THOMAS TRIMBLE Signed, Sep ..............................................................................-----........ [SEAL] ................................................................................................ ............... .................... _._........................... -....................... [SEAL] ...................................................................._---•-------............................ ............................................ ............ -..-............... [SEAL] New York STATE OF 605UN ss. County of New York 4-d i The foregoing irstrunient was acknowledged before me this j day of &,o .• , '1 •, ',• / r ••, , •, •'' / •.,./, ,,; ,.•• .; ','I.i f•• ,t ` ..• .•• r• 1,• •1J�✓I,11 /1 \��r'•1V�iK7 w:a.V , 1' 1►. ,� 1� '• •• •I' `/ � 1 ,,1r. •1 ,, , ;'` ,( , •1 .l �.. •, ,• • •.rrir. ,. r• ,/;•• • � � `' •` 1 .. r + ,r (.1, . , 1 : • .'I� r t , •'F . , . l . �..j 1 • I r •• • ►, 7� : I.� .�1 / a ..•.'. i, J 1 't t i � , .7 1•J.., ,'�, i• .�.1. . •; ,.. /. % ;•..rrlJ '1r NOYP.11lber 29p 1972 •'': �. •.'' ./'11•' ,t• ; ;; ;•,,. 'i,..,, ;,• .•,, r• , ,,,,•,,, ♦1/.,,',' ;�:r Job No. 2334A ' •• t ::; 1.1 •: j'••,, : Thanae Fstate Aeacription le 40 •, •.:';�.; ; • ''`•'� 1,' 6FU described' •. . t' land being apart of Lot 11 Sec. 11 T10S R85�r „ tract of ,,, •,:'• .)-.,,' . .t• 1• as fo1lOtiYs: ct3. of the South -right of uay ,� _;• l;l '` ``' .r, :„ . at a oint ' being the intersection • Beginning P 82 and the West line Lot 11 Sec. 119 line of Coloo State Highway No. 8 6F} .;,.: 1• lu 11W 234.85 ft. from the F core Sec..1 ?'lOS R 5 $ 'r.;y•;.'I :�• . Y., being S3 3 (1951 HL}d Br ass Cap along ftthe }lest line Lot 11 to the Northerly ' ,,,..�':. ►� Thence S03000 L 2g9o34 g -` :`; +:J +�%•:. ,: right of stay line of Maroon Creek Road j ;` 1'L /, •t 2003.00 ft. along Maroon Creek Road right cC1 way' •, '' Maro n Road right of �: r �; • �' 7 Thence N00°13'W 119.24 ft. along the o Creek nth right of ray line of Colo. State Highway No. 82� 1 t0 t SOL g ►,r : ; he o 11014 26 ft slow the South right of way lihe of • 0 Wo g `;:�;-.i��''t•/'' ;, �. ', '� ., :,:.a . Thence N5 41I31 �} No. g2 to the point of. beginnings- on _ • ,.; :. �` -1 •. �•, �•, •'...•'��•a(! •' Colo] . State •iigJ`t�ts►Y•' r i ? � ` 3 1i •' +' •�. � 7 • ,5 ecred'more or: leas..00347 ,' ;t( af- 1 t'�; ,;.,.`• ;:;:�:-:•,: ;: ;• :�.f ,: •1 :1 :"•. •. '. :i« • t. , it •%• •.ti. .�t. :f I•: J�•', .�• t:•,' -• Al lie IC • �_,�,i' .'w '•.\%♦ rJ.+ ��: �: Ir.,., ''•:i: ( -,�. .�•'r;•,•,• I.. .tt�• �'•.:: •t:l. ,1 �1'V,•, S•t•I.ri ./�� •"'•ri•,' .;•;' + ►: ; '. , - ' ,'•(i•fi. \li. �Ir• • ' %. •1. 1 •Y.. ,••• :, '/7•:• � :, 1, .1 .•:� '- w',• • ' .�. ►.. ':1,' .� fir, •, •/' �• •i• • '. 'i t •�•�11i • •i .,. .,.-'.' /. •,. •f: t'.. •'' 1 �!• '.l .� •r. 7 \..' 1 ,.. •,.. ..s 4.'/ ,,(•t ••'•`�i, ♦-.i • ,� •�' 1 , •. •t• ��,•�' ��.tt �•t: • •,�,• ../1��•�.• .f •r•�'K /1,.• �+• 't �•.a '�. 'f.•.' •••. •�':.�'•, _ .. '�� •a.r•� r. 1 ✓ . ,..'..-.�.%!i• •: .f :: �' �' �'� 1 •' ..4• i;•''':• '1 'r, j• •1-' 't,'� ,'L;•��%.•r-�. •��•'ll.lr i..t/�. iI �1.�,' . 11 ,, I• IIi'. (I ;,• f. •1 'ri`'f..,, .•,. .., lU.J-r �.•..',l'•1 .. '1� • •1 •1 , . � . /•'+' •`•. ,•. •• •-•. •' �('. •/(�, ,+I. :./r'1. •t. .f 1. i)�t •• t: ,, : �!••• .,� tl• .y :J. / •• ''(•. ` ,� a' it•`..• t r•,• ...i ::; 'I. .�,,.7 •'• .S• :;. i •, .f{•i� •/,•' SI ', .. - '►:••, �'. • ' '-, •.. . 1 �:_ •f' '/ •,'. .1 ,I '.r• ;�'•'•• ,, ,' r' ;.; i ,.,: , , .r'.' .I.' �i' fit- ', -`.1• 1' •/• ••. { , ' j.� •,1 �.y. .,• • •. .;. '�•�'•, r �1 i.+ �� :i •.; p,�2 .. 'I•.Ir./.l l:l, ••►. ,., '+ ':�1.' •,� �� •• •/• '.L �� •,: ''�•;� . �; .`. ,i • i ' / •1 •, i• '•'fr •/ • •1'7:.( 'I •r r'7 �';' '. ,I .I'• �`•' !,!•ll ,'1. •f •�. • �• + ••; �' "r•'��•� :' • •' 4 1, f, .+ + •• f•'1• 'r: • '� a•:.; Y1 ••`,'�� �' ..:�••i1 1 :. ;` , '',• i' ,• ,. l '� 7� r 1 :..:r '• i �' � :• ..�, :/; fir � tt'_1 ••%�f. .. '.•' <' 1. ,`.•' ':! i:'- .;•,.1 w: 1• •,i�•'�.'.,� •'a, •..'.f �'a't•� ! .` j; 'J. , ,.�1.. r• - 'II i ;G' ^ �. �, ' ''+1' .`i::rf.l'`.• �.• _ r:l t•• :.. -%Y, �• �, r. - •• _ ' /'t•, 'w. ` Il �\p'1'ta , 1 ��',(:.l•(1•'' •7 .•,.'t:• �'.i, :A' 11 ' 1 . •+( •�� a'r�i llt 'f ./•,' ,' ..i• • � .t•• ,• • , �/ ../'•; .11'1 '�` •/t,,' . '� •• l' rr r .�•• it; •� 1 r r 'f '• .+ •',. -+ ►1 � ,•._1, .,` • �1,; �••/.. � • r.' ,' ` J ''7, 1.•4 •�• I�•f• • •�, /: •r''1'•, ;`,+ ::.. • •4:�' .(••�w• •/ '.Lr/. ',•4•: `7''',••iy•:�.. •1•..t..S •Y���.+i,t•l.'il,�• .•. �..• �.�r. .a •+.. L•�••.`« ''r /,:'J •.. ' L`.•�fl•., �,,� •t•'1'/ '�►'1 ar:• •• •1 ..•• - ,�'•'%•(,'.r''1''5 ./.,✓! 0w1�`,�.7.,.♦•:���Ia,.�• •,. • - ' � 1 _ .1•••• :�,���: ;:`:.• •:• • •1 V.,.••..t•. •f.• ✓•. iyV''I ' '>, ./•''�•!•,�,. •' .. ..'f. � '•~,1' i '• '�.1�''•.�1 •l: 1••. .r�. l' y i•' ;. ' 11 .�f �... �1 .•• .i:�• .' ,•i•' , • �1..t ,.�. .,•',1 •tom••••• 'a ': •fir � .i• Jl jr .• ,t, • i ♦./L� ..�'�.a tr �� • ''� l ' 1, 1�: i+t .,�•ii � ..A ••. ' /�' • �• 1' , •r '1' •J; /•� •,r, 1• r• •• i '�' •.1` •r f '• '�_•�..., y •.1'v . .,�,1 , • y I bUUA November 29, 1972 Job No, 2334A Thomas Estate lleacriptioa Land Sale to City of ,Aspen r' FXHIB IT A-2 ,' A tract of land being parts of Lots 8, 99 & 10, and the SW-LSK4 Sec. 12 T10S R85K 6PM described as follows: Beginning at a point being the intersection of the South right of Nay line of State Highway No. 82, and the East right of way line df the Castle Greek Road, being 332.91 ft. S10032' 2011E from the W4 eor. Sec. 12 T10S R85W.6FU (a 1954 Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap) , :. thence s160361E 135:87 ft. along the East right of way fences thence S20054' E 2oo6.31 ft* along the East right of Tray fence, , ` thence S320101E 67.10 ft. along the E;aet right of way fence, thence N1801W E 1107.77 ft., • thence V250281 E 715;43• ft., thence N210471E 28247 f to, thence N100511 E .90.71 ft. to the South right of Tray line of Colo. State Highway No. 82, v thence along a curve to' the left, radius of 905.0 ft., a distance of `. 416.88 ft. (chord bears S8'70411W 413.21 ft.) along the South right of way line of Colo. State Highway No. 82, thence S7402711" 272.30 ft. along the South right of way line of Colo. State Highway No. 82.9 thence along a curve to the right, radius of 1196.0 ft., a distance of 919.54 ; • ft. ( chord bears N8303i r Yl 897.06 ft.), along the South right of way line of Colo: State Highway No. 82, to the point of beginning, subject to telepbene, ,-� power, water, and ditch lines in .place, , EXCEPT A tract of land formerly being Colo. Midland Rail Road Right of Way • 12 described in Bk 175 -� Pg• 628 ;..:' in Lots 8 and 10, and the 5�'I4S1J4 Sec. , '• Pitkin County Records, more particularily described as follows: ' Beginning at a point on the East line of the Thomas Estate property being 1823.79 ft. S400191E from the Vi cor. Sec. 12 T10S R8571 6FU ( a 1954 Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap), t.hPnnn ,S18010-tip 66�ljlj ft.. alone the East line of the Thomas Estate Property,' . ._• .. _ .. ..... •.. _ ... . __ �►.•---'—mot /.� '' ' , : 1�. 1 •. / • � f • , _� �� .1 tSllUn•� � U ilAi�i.•(�,•�. 11-29-72 job No, 2334A Tha=s Estate E�dlibit A-2 description cost. t ropertY, of the Thomas Esta tee_ p thence S31°�-' E •� f t. to the East line . then � the Thane►® Fstate pr��7• ':� •':•. the East lane of ' • • • t along .. ,•� 1 1 •. thenc© S18°14'yi 31935 f 1 •;. .. t;. f '/, .,• (�;, fir. 7 i,ence N31°21rY� 93•16 ft•, t 'radius of 408,10 fto, a distance of ht thence alon a curve to then ig . 218.46 fte), .. :.;.•.. �chord bears t�15 49 30 `�221.1r4 •ft.a distance of , :•, . to the rightsradius of 663065 ft., ',` .,'.• thence alon a curve r�o4t'Ol�E 9.91 ft.), t chord be 100 000 f • , a 8020 1 245.00 ft. t t • " thence 2,2 f t a , distance of 235.0 • . 1 to thy; left radius of 448o a line of the I.ain ' . thence slang a curve W 232.39 f t• ! to the South rig1t of - t ' (chord bears NO 41 ..s c ord •..•;� �,, line of the railroad, C® of �.36 07 ft e ft a distan • radiu® of 2964 • g • e hence along a curve to th© right, t :• .. d bears N49°11 "i 136.07 f t •) , thence N47°521VI 458:00 .''�`� • �'�•� railroad �1a�lli� •. �,. the cent of the Ts '•�'�'. 'r - go�� 1 �:18 ft. to a pent the East 1�e of �t�r •-�, --'•�':' ,� thence SS E 54 , t r1Y f `• •;.; � •�''�.��. �� - 6 ft morn' or less .,ior �eB�e ; •.. ... - . , - : -•• - .' ...� being 237 :.:. •f. S ec • 12 ( Kimberly Survey) �•' i�,'J�.•�•, `'' o t �. 4.18 t• t thenc® S88 24 E 5 ;� ; thence S47052TE 215•OO ft., of 454.01 ; • �'� 2 64 8 rt• a distance a curve to the left, radius of 7® of the Thomas Estate . ...:..•- +r,,�'I�a •'.�• thence along 20 4�E 453 50 ft•) to the Es► � .. ft• (chord bear® S5 3 '. '''�'•• t� property,. the Thcaraf; Estate pY`oPert�►' o � � 11�7.50 ft. al the. East line of thence. S25 28 s E�st,,at©, prop ertX. :'• ft along the East line of . the ; thence S180141YI 57•o6 r „ 1 ' ::��.`f �:•=T. \ ,� ` i • ��� f {� of beginning) � •' _•' 't. ��. ,•1 ` �,1. •:1'•; ;, :�•' ,�: •,' ►`t ,a L ' .,. to the point, . be �; 1' :,. 1 .:, \: : • . ey �• Ji..l :♦ , i 'i'' :jR • • •i • 'f { a, ' •ra �i:' •i•• ,� • .1 . y �..'x ' , �.4:��'�f \ . 'j `��, 1 •• ( I. t,. 1 ��• :,I 'J. •fir•. 1 Y 1 '' f. .i:: lr' �' :', a t�.(':�'1 (N.1..I.. /� . .� .• �1� :i .: t' :'• (/. �•. . 1 a,;• .��,• �. •,. f' •y J•.,. ,•. _ •1�,. 'f. . !,�• 'a r •'•f•r••; .r -•its•,.'• .\.'.j1 •1. �I f�.. •' .i' • ,•. •f. ... i �• f .'f'..: i' `� {� • •.. •1 �.•. 'i'. a: I'� 'L • i • : '..� ,1 I ' '. '' ••, •i. ' \' ,,• •�i .• •11r..� 1 •' ♦ .•• 11 ., •••�.�• '1 rN , 1•, •, ( ,�I. .4• *' ';•. ,, .'�i. �i .` �f,.�'.,\: •,/ I,t '•:l: ••+•I..ti•i ,1 .1 •+ •'y I.`Ii. i l'1 ,�'\1' /, ,�: •� •f''-�. (; j• ,• .,';;••j',. .� a `' •, �,�• ••• �y.- t1,1�•1 �'; -.� '•' •'.�./� `�;. I••'. .1 '\�.1 .'t� ./� �; ••''�1•'{,`I. •♦ 1 \ {�i 4'.. ' i;.1.•• ,.. i •r. :�, ..•, .1.�• 'I�, '^ f .IN�,•:�r' F .; yj ,,./,\:.;y. it„I •, t �. ,�"•l1 •�, 'I,,�' -1 �.,'. ,^ .. .`` (•.�_• �• ••( „�' '� •, .. r1 1 y' . •. ;� r •1 �1 . 1 r1�i • ' •'1•. '. '/M •I• •/1 i •n ,:.1•''' • •/' ,� . 1 1 ''• •, 'I ,,'. yy ,. 'i'.1 •.\ ' 1 '• 1..1. .•� r•�••1{ 111 �• ',�1•'i •r ( •�: ,'a) 1 .. �';'j.' •f'••' .(,t,, ,�• _ �••`li. 1 •( �•• �.••�..,, ;' •\.• • •� i•� . 1 � ,• 1.•i''� .' fi, :,,` .,' •.., '.''„ ... �.: � • •,r.'•'•,. ,. ,., ,!•�,�1 •t,.+, •,1�••�•'Ir 111'. 1,. ,f•, .••�. li`,• 1• . ,/ f', /a•,1/. ', 1•, . 1, . • - 1, .. _ ,. �� '1. ,, •.. �1' f'•i. •�. •'�I-'•. • •\ '�• '1� \• :•. r. '•.1 .. 1.• • .•1 • • \•a , Jurt Dec. 11, 1972 j Revises Nov. 29, 1972 Job No. 2334A • Thomas Estat© Descrintion Land Sale to City of Aspen Survey Description EXHIBIT A-3 + A tract of land being part of NN114Pf' Lot 5 and Lot 6 of Sec. 13 and ' SY"SW' Sec. 12 T10S M5W 6FM described as follows: • Beginning at the NW cor of Sec. 13 T10S R85111 6PM- being the same cornet as ' , •' approved by the General Land Office• from the official plat dated No1888: • �'. whence an unapproved 1954 Bureau of Land kanagement Braes Cap bears. •.' N330581E 45v95 ft., ' S00003�401E 87.00 f �tWest Brie Ni Sec.. 13s > -• " hther;e thence N90000t E 714.79 ft: - �• .. ;� •. , . thence N00000 1 208.11 ft. ; : • •: : - '. thence N900001E 160.00 ft. thence S00°001 17.0.00 ft. .. f ... • ' thence S900001W 160, 0. ft.' °. _•,' - _ ., thence SOOoOO1 38.11 ft., ►, thence N901DOOIE 85921 ft thence o S00 001 526.89 ft. - ' . - : • • '.�:' ; - , • . _ .• . . -�' thence N900001E 24-79 ft.- thence N00%01 120.00 ft...'. { ;.,: :�. • . thence N900W I E 213.00 f t e F .. ,: `� -; • . , .. ` ' ' thence S000001 300.00 ft., thence S900001W 48OeOO ft., ,;�... thence N00°001 ' g ft a .411 �. ,; thence S90°�' 55?•20 ft. to -the W lineof .Lot 6 Seo.`.13,. OW2- • `' .+' ' '' '. • Thence S00°'03'4011D 1229.33 ft, along W lineof Lot 6 Sec. 1 to ' • g 3 the YID}aor,• ,' :'• :. , .. Sdc • 3.3 (1954 Bureau of Land Management Braga Cap), ' • •' ; ;•: �:•. Thenc© N89o36'E 671.87 ft, along the South line of the NW4 Sec. 13 to the intersection with the West line of the Mammouth Placer minetal '� •' \.� ''�'. �'',. survey No. 6930 AM., •>:r� - ,;;. •;`. �,. ;4' ', � Thence N °10' line of t 41+ E 7a.51 ft. along thei�Yieet he L�ammouth Placer ••;' ; , . . ,• to cor05/¢930 Aft. 'a otone cor. in place Thence N.330151E 450.45 ft.j'.along the West line - of the Uammouth Placer to*."'-. .,�• �': ,. \�.,�,. '� West R.O.W.''line Gastl© Creel: Road '. - j = •' :; ':' •;; :,.;;: Thence N15"53'E 975.00 ft* along the West R.OX * line Castle Creen mad Thence N09014' E 738.34 ft. '::.;;+ �' ':• :;. :.;. Thence W70011Yi 262,E ft. ", n ::-; nn n ,:.^;. n . .... �� j n _ n :,:• n ,';';' •:�: r'` '�• ,, ":;�. `'' '�.rr' ` • Thence 1-1330271YV.181.00 die n , ., n „ ,i n ' ; ' n `;; '::,, N ,.'' • '� a :-: • a . ' - •. .�,._. , . '.... •,_:, Thence - h N44 9 W 5 f Thence N52o46+W 276.67 ft. ?„j,':j'-• .';, :` 'Thence N430171W 111.14 fte ' :•- .,i, , ; ,' ;':: Thence S23041?W'.223.61 ft. to the N line of NY14 Sec. 13, -' •` ' • ,;: ,� �; ;ti,;,-;;�'�, . Thence N89052r,'i 738.67 ft. along N line,• of N174 Sec. 13 to the point of " •'' ;.;�•<;►., r:,::';', Cont ainin 57.835 Acres more or less., except that portion described r'/='•:;�; below which is -not being conveyed.** •'• ! - • . '� ':;�'.�;� :,. • ;:: Description tion qualified b ' ' p q y intent and position of 1954 unapproved Br�sa Cap' and 1888 Sec. C'or. . as it refers to boundaries of property described n ` ' Book 1.15 Page 413 and Book 221 Page 105 of Pitkin County Records. .'There is a 0.212 Acre overlap of these -descriptions based on above note. A tract of land being part,,of Ni'i NW! Sec. 13 T10S R85W 6PM ,.. t .;'�'<< •. �: ; >;�'; :,' .; ' as follows: , %; �'`:-:•'''` •, Beginning at the NW cor, of Sec.T10S R85W 6Pff being the same �'1 -� :� `' • ;• 4... ,.' ..13 as approved by .the Genera 1 sand Office from the Cutshaw Surve. ......:+, :1 . �,.: ,•..,, .t •: ; .`'1,� ;' for n from the official plat ted Nov . 8 , 1888 ,. whence a unapproved dated . -•• 1954 Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap bears N 33'°58' B 45.95 f L . � thence S 890521 • 738 67 f t , 'Tong. the North line of the NIYJ SQC. , then ce. S' 23'041 W 50.6...46 ft*; ,.. ... thence N 89°52' W 534-, 72 ft'. to the West line of the NWi Sec. I :;.:•:: thence •N.'00 °03'-4011 V1 •464'. 23 ft. along .the • West line'..of the NW •13 -'ib`: the point -of -beginning;:,. containi-ng %?86; acres more ' IT Exhibit 5 MAR �Zh�' 951 jc08PM,�,�GIBSON 8♦ RENO 1 P. 6 C' QUA Lr ) Order No. A9 5- 0 0 4 ='7ACRN'f 0$nMR88=P ClIRTIMATI oR1►T=o� • a corporation a=S seised mad sYsetsag uados ASVIN TZTLN CORF and by virtue of the 14Ys of the state of Colorado. l9RHaY C TI'PISS 1 and diligent ooirch of the tecordsand she has That Zt has made a cs,retu Colorado, office of the Clark and Recorder for pSo=ie it es set forth on the e ersone, f irme determined that those a=ecc and by this rsf er�oe incorporated z�atsn sythibic �'Ar attached h apparent OwnG g eft lots, 9 the "real made past hezeof , reflect the ap within 300 and state of arcelr and condominium uaitein Yiin the County Of Pitkin, property situate, lying and b Colorado, to -wit: THE URIRIT "B" ATTACIBD Lj&& L DESCRIPTION SET FORT O CORPORATFD HEREIN A= MADEAN MERRTO D $F . THIS REFERENCE A PART IMRE0 d for the us® and benefit of the This Cezt�.ficate has been rapers Of Pitkin, , -applicant and t90 City of Aspen 'ih the ORA ZS gY 'tk nY stave same lorado . TXZ &U9%LZTY TXZ C01tFAoY 8R1�T=FICAz''S PLuN State of Co � GF 1'NN gR8 pAZa FO�i 1'8S9 LnaTSD SC T88 $Z50.00• DUN: Dedember 22. 1994 )JIM TzTLB CollPONJ1TZox. IL Colorado oos"ratOn By: "' MAR 21 '95 12:09PM.GIBSON & RENO .P r-0 1 .+ar ...+ a.L o wr i i hard i i i i i r Pp. 5 .2 sY.HIBZT "B" situated in the Southwest one-cfuarter (SW 3 4 both Of A parcel of land and the Northwest ona-Qy,arCer t�1�485 Of section of the 6th Section 13, a in ToaaBhip l0 South, Range more gully sections being colorado and b&irQ Principal Meridian, pi�tkin Couz%tyr described as follows: on the Southwesterly right -of -way of castle an reek Begf,nning at a point p $22.4 8 feet Road, the said point being South 79 10 17 B3st� p unapproved 1954 t19 78 Bureau of Land Management braes ca h Range 85 wesGezly corner of SeCtf on 13 , Tovrnship 10 5out �3 for the North al meridian; West of the 6tb' 41f waste 730.07 feet; to the westerly thence South 23 534.72 feet more or less thence North id sect on 13; Section 13, South boundary of said the Westerly boundary of se thence Southerly along t more or less to the West one Land 00,03140" East. -Of 21f205.10Section fee a unapproved 1954 8uraau of Land (W1/4) corner ge�t�on l3, PP Management brass cap monument; 671. thence North 89 %3g 1 SaSt, 67 -8751 fefeet; etl thence North 44 10 East, 450.45 feet n►ore or less to the Westerly thence North 33 15 $ ri ht-of •way right -Of _way line of Castle CreekRoad: and southwesterly g thence Norther' Y along the line of Castle Creek ROM North 15 ' 5 3 ' taste 915.00 feet; North 09 ;14 � Bast, 736.34 feet; 262.69 feet; North 07 01 Went, North 331271 WeSt, lel.00 feet; 70 feat; North 44 09 west, 276.67 feeC� North 52'46' West, 4 `17' W40t, 111,14 feet to the Point of BeginlS ng. North 3 . MAH24l ' 9 * 1Id i d' 'n GHbP"LN 1 1 RLL Tv'd P.4 P 1 Order No. A95-004 pen/Pitkin Housing Authority 10 E . Main street Aspen, CO 81611 aadowocd Homeowners ASSOCiaticu Rebecca Ayers - Treasurer 29 'Larkspur Lame Aspen, CO 81611 ^mee E. Moore and Alberta L. Moore BOX 126 Woody Creak, CO 81656 ttrivia Papper Grove Island Drive #1501 Miami FL 33133 Iaward H . Wachs. Jr ; n!ox 405 Aspen, CO 81612 4S S. Dspartmcnt of Agric 1 u Fvzest service tW No address City of Aspen 30 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 stricia 0. Patterson and Paul T. Patterson 7P 1 0. Box 3905 Aspen, CO 816.12 • MAR 21 '95 12:07PM GIBSON & RENO d G. e G f rl 1 narwi i t Lc P P. 1 s va31eY Hoapital District O200 Castle crask Road Aspen, Colorado 61611 (John swim and stephanie swim 433 WeeCo o=ado 81611 Aspen, sherry mikos. Tomb and William N. Tomb lla Luke Aspen, colorado 81611 # Elizabeth J. Evans 114 East Rleekor street Aspen, Colorado 21611 ./Rosemary strong p 0 Box 11938 Aspen, Colorado 61611 phi 1 ip A. S l oemsma and Barbara L . Mink 81 oemg" �0.0. Box 3392 Aspen. Colorado eorge S. Burson, Jr. and Kathie L• Rurson 1.0. Box 9636 Aspen, Colorado g162.2 �eborah KardeT 120 Maple Lsne Aspen. Colorado'81611 ohn D. Walla and Jean fl. Walla 1P.O. Sox 161 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Rim Weil and Betsy Schefnkman Weil - `t p . 0 . Box 4111 . Aspen, CO $1612 obe rt C . Xerri tt and Jeanette R . Da=&uer .0. Box 5046 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ner=i s I. O' die i l and Sharon J . 0' Nei 1 is D Pacific Avenue Aspen. Colorado 61611 . Ian Long and Barbara Long .0. Box $603 Aspen, • Colorado 8161,- MAR 21 '95 12:07PM GIBSON & RENO• JAN 30 '95 12t27PM ASPEN TITLE P•a JB ruse L . Lee and Mark K . wagnon =3o Teal Court Aspen, Colorado 81611 oria Conjlenti $nd Mindy Contlenti .o. Box 3305 Aepeno Colorado S1612 �oha L . BoYB r III and Judith K . Boyd .0 . - Box S22 Aspen, Colorado 81613 Ja0a4 Engler and Joan gn91er P.O. Sox Sol% Aspen, Colorado 91612 `,Marc Kiernan %ud AMY V . Rincoul p.0. Box 5$3lorad0 s1654 snowma s 6 , Co d�ftuls Hutto p.0. 8°X 11642 iorado g1612 Upon, Co his $ . VaCl can j jr, and A=G Maclean P.O. Box 1133 Aapenr Colorado ®1612 Richard J , Magf 11 and Linda Spada-MaSii�-i 0U0 Rabbit Road Carbondal6 R sn and Michael R. yAshineki tea L . Ym 725 WgSt FO�ao®816� ASpsnr Colorado David L. P010vin IG 0 -DOx 43 62 ABQen� Co 8161 kaelin.• atan KaeliBts�staBia 5 North Mill 5 eet Agpan, Colorado 81611 �breon Fre Erik Silver and Rll@n Crda silver th street 45 Sant a Nav York 1012E crman New York, rl R. SerSm&ne nd, Catherine M. Bar- p.0. Box 1365 Aspen, Colorado 61613 rj K . M.Dcimer and Charles - Mencimer sox 5 City of Aspen MAR 21 195 12:OBPM GIBSON & RENO P.S i. ow d.r iG o 2-1 h I r1Jrcxi 11 1 Lt P. 5 1�ro1 Scf f 437 Meadowooerd Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 Nancy Kirsch California iA Los Angeles, w.ry'all'an D. secrist 174 Larkspur Lane • Aspen, Co a 1612 ad N. Lathrop and stephanie M. Lathrop p,o. Sox 2775 Aspen, Co 81612 alvin Z. Dska and Carol Sherman Daka, as Co-Ttu9teee of the Oaks 'Family y Trust 2916 la la $states, California 90274 paloa Of the Ronald F . Laug Ttuet U/T/A dated .August F. Laug, Trust� e August 1.10 1977. 12032 East End Road North palm Beacht Florida 33408 �azy A. Duffey `P.0. Box 3652- Aspen, Colorado ichael X. Sussman PO. Box 295 • il-ngsbridge Station gro=, Ny 10463 -10ftron S . podhurst and Dorothy E • podhurst 725 West Flagler street Miami, FL 33130 arol d A . Thau ,and Dorothy ' A • Thau 800 East Hopkins( ( 6B4 Aspen, CO 81611 laic p. Worobec and Rua®e11 N. Worebec 73.640 oakridge Olace o�illistnspert, PA 17701 erties, Inc.. a Colorado corporation �.ub px o P ari Avenue . 601 Sant gym Aspen, CO 81611 and Znc., a Colorado corporation lub properties, 1 Grove Isle Drive #ISO:L rig to caunty Assessor' 9 records) Miami F'L 23133 (� c Exhibit 6 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS S('` (970) 925-6727 SCHMUESER �1 P.O. Box 2155 FAX (970) 925-4157 GORDON MEYER Aspen, CO 81612 June 17, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens THE STEVENS GROUP 312 Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Affordable Housino Project, Final Plat Submission, Enoineerina Report Dear Tom: This letter comprises an engineering report regarding the proposed Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Affordable Housing Project in Aspen, Colorado. This report is being provided in conjunction with existing conditions mapping, a Specially Planned Area (SPA) zoning amendment map, a draft Final Plat, access plans and profiles, utility schematic plans and details, grading and drainage plans and storage building elevations for the Final Plat submission to the City of Aspen review process. The Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Affordable Housing project has been significantly revised from prior iterations of the Water Place Affordable Housing project in response to input from a variety of sources including members of the public, the Planning and Zoning Commission, Water Department as well as City Hall staff and City Council. This work represents the results of many site visits as well as discussions and meetings with project neighbors, representatives of the various utilities and our meetings with the architect and members of the City of Aspen staff. Introduction The project site is located on Doolittle Drive off of the Castle Creek Road and south of the existing Castle Ridge Housing complex. The property proposed for construction of the affordable housing comprises a portion of Lot 4 of the City -owned Thomas Property as defined in Amendment 1 to the SPA map. Lot 4 currently comprises a total of about 54 acres and the housing proposal would utilize approximately 4.39 acres including 0.92 acres of road right-of-way to accommodate a total of 23 housing units. The proposal now comprises 23 individual sale units (22 new units and the renovation of the existing on -site residence) with a total of 47 new bedrooms in units ranging from studios to four bedrooms in size. The site plan incorporates 61 off-street parking spaces including covered "car port" spaces, garages and driveway and guest parking as well as a van shelter and pedestrian access to the bus stop at the Health and Human Services building and the Marolt property trail. In addition, the project now includes additional improvements as well as identifying future uses for the upper portion of the City's Water Treatment Plant site within the remainder of Lot 4. In part to accommodate the construction of the affordable housing and in part to anticipate future needs for storage by a variety of City of Aspen departments, the submission now includes: Approximately 12,000 square feet (s.f.) of designated outside storage areas for materials storage and to accommodate materials that will need to be relocated to accommodate the housing project. New enclosed storage building space including both a new building of approximately 3,960 square feet and potential expansion of an existing storage structure for another 118 West 6th, Suite 200 - Glenwood Springs, Colorado - (970) 945-1004 i I i i C t June 17, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 2 400 square feet. • A location for a future storage building of about 2,000 s.f. • Identification of a possible future expansion of the raw water storage reservoir. • The addition of a second floor to the west treatment plant to accommodate additional office, reception and storage space. • Revisions and additions to the plant security fencing. • Relocations and additional utility line construction up into the area of the treatment plants. • Grading of an electric transformer storage area. • Remodeling of the East treatment plant. I have endeavored herein to identify engineering related elements of the development plan and to present the results of my discussions with relevant agencies. Water We have met with Phil Overeynder and Mark O'Meara of the City of Aspen Water Department with regard to this proposal. Water Department involvement in this project is really at two levels, first, the provision of service to the proposed housing units and related water main relocations and security fencing revisions and second, the inclusion of several improvements in the upper plant area both to accommodate the impact of the housing project on the Water Department's operations, storage and access as well as to anticipate future needs within this revision to the SPA plan for the property. From the standpoint of service to the proposed housing units, the site is located on the boundary of the City's gravity system and the pumped pressure zone for Meadowood. Service to the 17 units located in the yard area east of Doolittle Drive would be via a main extension from an existing 8 inch diameter main in Doolittle Drive that is fed from the pressure side of the Meadowood pump station. Service to the 6 units to the west of Doolittle would also be via a shorter main extension into the cul- de-sac area. Individual tap sizes would be determined when detailed designs can be reviewed by the -- Water Department but I would anticipate that one tap per building would be needed. The townhouse and duplex units would then split into individual shut -offs and meters for each sale unit. One opportunity at this site will be to utilize available raw water rather than domestic (treated) water for irrigation purposes. As you are aware, there are substantial raw water flumes that bring Aspen's water supply to this property. We have shown a water feature ditch within the site plan tapped from the Meadowood Ditch along the west boundary of the housing site. This design concept is based on a recommendation from Phil Overeynder that the backwash pond and water plant bypass flows be pumped to the ditch culvert and then routed through the site. As you are probably also aware, the City of Aspen has a policy of waiving a portion of its water tap fees for 100% affordable housing projects. Once the Water Department has had the opportunity of establishing a specific figure from the architectural plans, it is appropriate to request a tap fee waiver SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. June 17, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 3 through the City Manager's office. Capacity is generally available to supply the additional housing units without significant improvement to the existing water distribution system other than the extension of lines into the project site. The site is also bisected by the two main water lines into town. The current site development plan will require a relocation of approximately 350 linear feet of the westerly 24 inch diameter transmission main in the area of the single family homesites. This main will also be replaced an additional 250 feet to the vicinity of the existing 2-million gallon clearwell at the request land expense) of the Water Department. For the general benefit of the water system, a 12 inch diameter raw water line will be extended from the vicinity of the west treatment plant in the same trench as the relocated 24 inch line and capped beyond the limits of the housing project for future extension into the Meadowood area. Also, the 8 inch diameter pressure line that will be tapped to serve the housing project will also be extended at its south end to connect an existing fire hydrant at the treatment plants and provide pressure service to the plant buildings. The amended SPA plan also incorporates changes within the remainder of Lot 4 for the Water Department including road realignments and regrading, construction of outside storage areas and additional storage buildings in the vicinity of the existing treatment plant. Construction of housing at the current yard site will require changes and additions to the treatment plant fencing and access gates to prevent general public access into sensitive or potentially hazardous areas. Phil has expressed a preference that pets be prohibited from the property and that pedestrian access down the hill be incorporated into the site plan. Sewer I met with Tom Bracewell of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) on March 21 st. Tom indicated that adequate capacity is available from the ACSD to serve the housing project although service to the specific sites will involve fairly extensive main construction totalling about 825 feet with manholes. An existing collection main is located in the east end of the upper loop of the Castle Ridge Housing site. A proposed 8 inch diameter sewer main extension is shown in our utility schematic plans accompanying this report. Sewer service is available to the project subject to construction of the necessary extension, payment of appropriate tap fees (ACSD does not waive tap fees for affordable housing projects) and payment of a nominal tap fee surcharge for needed improvements to downstream lines that service this specific area. One new addition to the current plan involves an extension of the sewer line, in a 6 inch diameter size, to replace the current 4 inch service to the upper treatment plant site. This line represents about 600 linear feet of additional construction and is shown on the utility plans along Doolittle Drive from the housing site up into the plant area. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ' June 17, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 4 Miscellaneous Utilities Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. Electric service to the Castle Creek area is provided by Holy Cross Electric Association, a rural cooperative. The main primary electric line to the Castle Creek area passes through the Water Plant property as an overhead line aligned approximately parallel to the Castle Creek Road and just to the west of the proposed units as reflected on the utility plan. Based on my discussions with Holy Cross field engineer Jeff Franke, there is sufficient capacity within the existing primary line to provide service to the affordable housing units. The only required extensions of the electrical distribution system would be buried primary lines to transformers located within 200 feet of the individual building envelopes. Service from Holy Cross would be provided subject to normal connection and meter charges as well as appropriate service agreements. Improvements now proposed in the upper plant site area will require minimal electric service which is, again, available at the site. U.S. West Communications The existing telephone feed for the City of Aspen water treatment plant currently runs through the property as an overhead line on the electric system poles. There is probably not sufficient capacity within the existing line to provide service to the housing project, although Gary Gibson of U.S. West informs me that the necessary upgrades to the main line would be undertaken by U.S. West. The only internal extensions of the system required would be underground service lines to the individual building sites. Service would be available from U.S. West Communication subject to normal connection fees and service agreements. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company Gas service to the Castle Creek area is provided by Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company (RMNG) with a 4 inch diameter gas line and was recently extended up the Castle Creek Road corridor to supply the Castle Creek Valley Ranch Subdivision. There is also a 1 1 /4 inch diameter line into the City Water Treatment Plant following the existing 24 inch diameter water line along the west portion of the housing site plan. This line will require relocation along with the relocation of the 24 inch water main. Ray Patch, RMNG Superintendent for the Aspen area, indicates that service capacity is available to serve the affordable housing project. Service would likely require extension of a larger gas line, probably in from the Meadowood area, and service stubs with meters to each building envelope. Service is subject to normal connection charges and service agreements. Cable TV The cable TV system currently ends within the Castle Ridge Housing site directly to the north of the project site. Cable extensions of about 400 feet are required to serve the housing project. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. June 17, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 6 In summary, it is our opinion that the proposed affordable housing project on the City of Aspen's Water Plant property will not result in any changes to historic runoff patterns or volumes in the area. Because of the density and project location well above area streams and water courses, we do not anticipate the introduction of any pollutants into area stream systems. I trust the above comments are sufficient for Final Plat submission purposes. Please feel free to contact me if 1 may provide additional information or detail. Very truly yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. JW. ammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh 95030ER5 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Exhibit 7 Jan 23 96 11 : 54 NO . uu ti r . ui HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. i\ 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 X ,J SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED WAS PLACE HOUSING NORTH OF WATER PLANT, DOOLITTLE CIRCLE ASPEN, COLORADO JOB NO. 195192 MAY 8, 1995 PREPARED FOR: CM OF ASPEN AT IN: CRIS CARUSO 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Post -It* Fax Note 7671 IDate 1 �3 pa°g"► (`j To r==& S 144, From D / M D/ nl CoJDep1. Co.•0 u Phone 0 Phone # 9 Fax 1i 7: �� HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 HEPwORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. May 8, 1995 jan zo 'j0 11 • ivu . 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 94S-7988 City of Aspen Attn: Cris Caruso 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No. 195 192 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Water Place Housing, North of Water Plant, Doolittle Circle, Aspen, Colorado. Gentlemen: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed housing development at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building area consist of up to 3 1/2 feet of topsoil and fill overlying medium dense to dense silty clayey sand and gravel with cobbles. Groundwater was encountered in the borings between 6 and 10 feet below the ground surface. The proposed buildings can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural granular subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3, 000 psf. The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during - design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. Rev. By: SLP DEH/rr cc: Gibson Reno - Scott Smith HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 1S `.fib 11 ; :):) ivu . uu� r . u,) TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION . . . • . . . • • • • . . • • • . . . . . . . 1 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FIELD EXPLORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . • • • • • • • . • • • . • . • • • 2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . % . . . . . . . • . • • 3 FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FLOOR SLABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 SITE GRADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 SURFACE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . • • • • • . LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES - FIGURE 4 & 5 - GRADATION ANALYSES TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS HepworthPawlak Ge o t e c h TEL : 303-945-8454 j an zo yo L .L * J V I iU . vv,) I . V" PVRpOSE AND SCOPE of STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed Water Place Housing development to be located on Doolittle Circle, North of the city water plant, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to City of Aspen, dated March 28. 1995. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine the engineering characteristics of the on -site soils. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundations. This report summarizes the darn obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. Prior to drilling the borings for our study, we spent a day drilling shallow auger holes for Waste Engineering as part of their Phase II site assessment. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed development will include 8 single family houses, two duplexes and a four-plex. The buildings will be 2 story wood frame structures over possible basements or crawl spaces. Ground floor will be structural over crawl space or slab -on - grade. Grading for the structures is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 8 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical W the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The site is occupied by a wood frame house west of Boring 1 on the west side of Doolittle Circle. The majority of the site, to the east of Doolittle Circle, is a storage HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:56 No.003 P.05 -2- yard for equipment, electrical transformers, pipe, etc. The area is relatively flat with a gentle .slope down to the east. There are steep slopes down to the north on the north side of houses 8, 9 and 10 and steep slopes down to the east in the area of houses 5, 6 and 7. There is a steep slope down to the north from Doolittle Circle to the area of the proposed four-plex. Vegetation at the site consists of oak brush in the four-plex area, and deciduous trees around the north and east sides of the storage yard. An existing large pit was observed in the vicinity of House 5. We understand the pit is used by the City as a sump for street sweepings and vehicle wash down. Snow cover was patchy over most of the site but was on the order of 2 feet deep in the four-plex area. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on April 17, 1995. Four exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The proposed four-plex area was not accessible to drill equipment due to the steep slopes, trees and snow cover. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck -mounted BK-51HD drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. In addition, we assisted Waste Engineering on April 14, 1995. by drilling several shallow auger boles as directed by thern. Samples of the subsoils for our study were taken with a 1 3/8-inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface ' conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 to 3 1/2 feet of topsoil or fill overlying medium H-P GEOTECH NepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:5( No.uu,� r.un -3- dense to dense, silty to clayey sand and gravel containing cobbles and boulders. Drilling in the dense gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, Atterberg limits testing and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 1/2-inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Figs. 4 and 5 . - Atterberg limits testing indicates the clay and silt portion of the subsoils is of low plasticity. Tile laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. Free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling between 6 and 10 feet. When checked ten days later, water levels were between 6 and 8 feet. Borings 2 and 4 had caved off at depths of 3 1/2 to 5 feet indicating water may be encountered near that level. The subsoils were moist to wet. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. Shallow groundwater may impact basement construction. In general, floor levels and crawl space grade should be at least 1 foot above the water level. The existing pit area should be avoided for building houses unless it is properly excavated and backfilled with structural fill. We have assumed that the subsoil conditions in the area of the four-plex are similar to those encountered in our borings. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. H-P GEOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:57 No.003 P.07 -4- 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural granular soils. Structural fill can consist of the on -site granular soils excluding topsoil and oversized rock, compacted to at least 100 % of Standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. Soft areas may be encountered and require their removal or stabilization. 6) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are free standing and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pcf for backfill consisting of. the. on -site granular soils. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an H-P GEOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:58 No.UUS r.U�$ -5- upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 q of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected even if the material is placed correctly and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50. Passive pressure against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf for properly compacted backfill and non -buoyant conditions. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4-inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material H-P GEOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:t)8 No.UU6 N.U3 -6- should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on -site granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDER.DRAIN SYSTEM Free water was encountered during our exploration at depths of 6 to 10 feet. We recommend below grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawl space and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50 % passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1 1/2 feet deep. The under slab gravel in basement areas should be connected to the perimeter foundation drain with interior lateral perforated drains. SITE GRADING The risk of construction induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the buildings are located away from steep slopes and cut and fill depths are limited. We assume the cut depths for basement levels will -not exceed one level, about 8 feet. F":is should be 1 imited to about 8 feet deep, especially at the downhill sides of the development (Houses 5 to 10) where the slope steepens. Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to 95 % standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20 % grade. H-P GEOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:5y No.uu,� r.lu -7- Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. if seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. We should review the grading plans for the development prior to construction and perform additional analysis for slope stability, surface and subsurface drainage as needed. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residential buildings have been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on -site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Surface water should not be concentrated and directed into the steep down st-•jes without adequate erosion protection. IIAMATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations H-P GEOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:59 No.UUS r.11 submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different, from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. Reviewed By: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. H-P GEOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 12:00 No.003 P.12 i i EXISTING HOUSE II __ � 12 EXISTING MAINTENANCE BUILDING , ..� BORING I r � FV.-OoR�►EO. cN MAR o� + a55v 8£N oo, ELE� BORING 2 4 BORING 4 � i r PROPOSED) 2 BUILDINGS) ( TYPICAL) 4 BORING 3 � ROUGH '- LOCATION 5 OF EXISTING PIT 6 mft.� woo — APPROXIMATE SCALE I.. = 40 i 1 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER I STORAGE AREA ROUGH LOCATION OF FORMER DYNAMITE STORAGE BUNKER E,9 192 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY 80RINGS �• I GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. NemmnrihPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 12:00 No.003 P.13 Boring 1 3orina L 7.6 rP.et Boring 3 R1ev . = 98.0 feet �orinq r],ev . =9 7 . fi feet -U,V . =9 0 5/4, 12./0 48/12 g/12 —s- wc=16.7 200=48 •o pn_1l14 5 Q,?7/11-?0�1=33 0 1( 4 - 44 22 0 0-200=3?.200t7 1- LL=23 p. PI=6 L i0 0 52/8 lc 17/12 • e D aA/12 o 15 51 / 9 70 27/8 we=? o . 9 -�-4=3n -7-00=32 52/ f.2 WC=8.7 +4= 33 -200=32_ i05/8 T�C71'c : explanation of ;symbols is shown on 5192 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK 195192 GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. 5 /0 37/7 5 tqc=5.8 s4=48 -200=17 Logs of Exploratory Borings I Fig. 2 Jan 23 96 12:01 No.003 P.14 HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 LEGEND: flul FILL; Driveway road base in Borings 1 and 4; clayey silt and sand with scattered gravel and cobbles, mottled browns in Boring 3. TOPSOIL; silt, sandy, gravelly, organic, soft, moist, dark brown. SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); silty to clayey, scattered cobbles, medium dense, moist, reddish -brown. GRAVEL (GM); sandy, silty, with cobbles, possible boulders, medium dense to dense, moist to wet, reddish brown to brown. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch 1. D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8-inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586. 8/ 12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 8 blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. 0,10 Free water level in boring and number of days after drilling measurement was made —T Practical rig refusal. Where shown above bottom of log, indicates multiple attempts were made to advance the boring. w' Cave depth at time of water check, 10 days after drilling. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on April 17, 1995 with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark on Fig. 1. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The tines between materiels shown on the exploratory boring lofts represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC =Moisture Content (%j -200 =Percent passing No. 200 sieve DD = Dry Density (Pcf) LL =Liquid Limit t%) +4 Percent retained on No. 4 sieve PI Plasticity Index 195 192 `HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 61:411=1-1 ..r mew Non• • HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 N Jan 23 96 12:03 No.003 P.17 r-- Z to O (3 Z U) J J a i= U_ aWc V w Lu � O cr W -- J O �G m Q Q <0 co Q 4 J a. - 0 CC Q W U C tD W 0 C C7 0 'C c c m c C tD to t0 .. ee c t0 w 'C > cm to > fn fA > C7 cn cn cn � W S O O o � u u x C r a � M 15 $ co N m P- Imlo � cn ch d' c �- y N th Cn I IL sa a o = co m CV) d' o a. co m p co O C6 to O � r F ® M LO to C .0 to LO to o m Lo 0 W N � i L Exhibit 8 CONFIDENTIAL PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT April 13, 1995 City of Aspen Property Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant Aspen, Colorado Prepared for: Mr. Chris Caruso City Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Prepared by: Waste Engineering, Inc. 2430 Alcott Street Denver, Colorado 80211 (303) 433-2788 co J TABLE OF CONTENTS PT Introduction ............................................... 1 Terms and Conditions ........................................ 1 Site Description ............................................ 2 Physical Characteristics ................................... 2 Adjacent Properties ...................................... 3 Historic Conditions ...................................... 3 Review of Regulatory Agency Records and Environmental Databases ........... 4 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................ 5 ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 - Location Map Figure 2 - Site Map Acronyms Photographic Log Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Report -i- INTRODUCTION This report has been written to comply with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Phase I Site Assessment Requirements. This site assessment includes, in the following sections, a site description (which includes physical characteristics, adjacent properties, and historic site conditions) a review of regulatory agency records and environmental data bases, and conclusions and recommendations. Waste Engineering, Inc. (WEI) performed a limited site reconnaissance of accessible areas on the subject property in the field on March 29, 1995. Historic records and aerial photographs were examined in an attempt to construct the developmental history of the area, to identify historic land use and to identify potential historic environmental hazards or contaminant sources. Regional geologic and hydrologic maps were reviewed to determine depth to groundwater and direction of groundwater flow. TERMS AND CONDITIONS This assessment is based on the information available to WEI at the time of the investigation and provides an indication of the status of the site at that time. The opinions expressed concerning the environmental risks or migration of contaminants are specifically addressed in this report. The goal of the processes established by this practice is to identify recognized environmental conditions. The term "recognized environmental conditions" means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. This process is designed such that completion of the process, as described in this report, should constitute all appropriate inquiry into the site and uses of the site to qualify for the innocent landowner defense to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability. A complete definition of the site conditions would require substantial testing and a more dL:riled investigation. Future conditions may change, and further investigation should be completed if contamination is suspected or if site conditions substantially change. Because of uncertainties related to subsurface conditions and the changing nature of site conditions, it is not possible for WEI to provide guarantees with this assessment. SITE DESCRIPTION The property investigated for this site assessment consists of a parcel of land located southwest of Aspen, Colorado (Figure 1). This tract of land is more accurately described as land situated in the NW1/4 of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, of the 6th P.M. The site consists of several buildings associated with the Castle Creek water treatment plant (Figure 2). The maintenance shop is situated near the center of the property. The maintenance shop is used by the City of Aspen for storage of tools, machines, and limited vehicle maintenance. No grease traps or other similar devices were identified by WEI within the maintenance shop. Numerous electrical transformers have been or are currently stored east of the maintenance shop (see photograph 3). According to Ron Ferguson with the City of Aspen Water Department, this site has been used for electrical transformer storage for at least 20 years. A sediment trap is situated near the east end of the transformer storage area. This area is used to collect and detain stormwater sediment and sludge from city street -sweeping operations (see photograph 6). City personnel were observed discharging materials during WEI's site visit (see photograph 5). Two above ground storage tanks (ASTs) were previously stored outside of the maintenance shop. According to Mr. Ferguson, these tanks were used for storage of diesel and regular (leaded) gas from approximately 1985 to 1990. There were no visible indicators (i.e., soil staining) of these two ASTs during WEI's site visit. However, a complete investigation of this area was precluded by several feet of snow. Physical Characteristics Aside from the buildings associated with the Castle Creek water treatment plant, the majority of the site remains undeveloped. Vegetation on the subject property consists primarily of scrub - oak and other native vegetation. The property has fairly steep relief throughout, which is typical of tributary canyons to the Roaring Fork River in this region. The topographic relief at the site and adjacent land is varied, with an overall slope toward Castle Creek. Surface water resulting from storm events or snow melt in the region generally flows toward Castle Creek. Groundwater at the subject site was not directly measured. United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps indicate that groundwater depths vary, with the shallowest groundwater closest to Castle Creek. Groundwater movement in the vicinity varies depending on specific topographic conditions but is inferred to be toward Castle Creek, located approximately 0.3 mile east of the subject property. According to the preliminary "Geologic Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado" (B. Bryant, 1971), the site geology is comprised of surficial deposits which are -2- described as "poorly sorted moraine deposits ranging from silt to boulders. In many places it has hummocky or ridge -and -trough topography." According the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Surveyof f Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, the property is dominated by the Yeljack-Callings complex with 12 to 25 percent slopes. This unit is described as "deep and well drained, on ridgetops, benches, and mountainsides. It formed in alluvium and colluvium derived dominantly from sandstone and loess. If this unit is used for homesite development, the main limitations are a modified shrink - swell potential, low soil strength, the restricted permeability, and the depth to stones, sand and gravel. " Adjacent Properties Adjacent properties are primarily residential and undeveloped and include the following. The City of Aspen is located approximately one mile northeast of the subject property. Castle Creek Road borders the subject property to the east. Further east, down a steep canyon, is Castle Creek which flows to the north. The land to the south of the subject property is essentially undeveloped forested land. Similarly, most of the land to the west is undeveloped. Aspen Highlands Ski Area is located approximately one mile southwest of the subject property. To the northwest is the Aspen Valley Hospital property is the Castle Ridge Housing subdivision. located north and west of the subject property. Historic Conditions facility. Immediately north of the subject Additional private residence buildings are Regional and site -specific historic documentation for the subject property including USGS and Pitkin County maps, aerial photographs, and Pitkin County Assessor's records were also reviewed in an effort to reconstruct the developmental history of the subject site and adjacent areas. Historic aerial photographs were reviewed at the U.S. Forest Service office in Aspen, Colorado. August 1990 aerial photographs showed the developments surrounding the subject property to the north and northwest were 80 to 90 percent completed in comparison with current conditions. The Castle Creek water treatment plant site appeared similar to present conditions. July 1973 aerial photographs of the subject property and adjacent lands showed that the subject property appeared similar to present-day conditions, except that the maintenance building did not exist. The current transformer storage area was cleared of vegetation, but no signs of significant equipment storage were evident from this photograph. -3- October 1939 black and white aerial photographs of the subject property and adjacent lands showed that the subject property was basically undeveloped except for two round buildings near the current maintenance shop. There was only one road on the subject property which led to the site from the south. REVIEW OF REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASES Our investigation included, but was not limited to, a review of the following lists prepared and maintained by environmental regulatory agencies for the area around the subject site. These lists were searched for sites up to a one -mile radius of the subject property: • Underground Storage Tank (UST) list, July, 1994 list from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Oil Inspection Section, • Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list, October, 1994 list from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), October, 1994 list from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), • Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) list, December, 1993 list from EPA, • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) list, November, 1994, from EPA, • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) April, 1994, from EPA, • National Priorities List sites, Colorado, August, 1994, from EPA, and • Solid Waste Sites and Facilities list, December, 1994, from CDPHE. This regulatory list review was performed by Environmental Data Resources, (EDR) Inc. The EDR report is included as an attachment. A review of the above records from the EDR report and other sources of information revealed that no RCRIS or CERCLIS sites were identified on or near the subject property. No USTs or LUSTs were registered at or near the subject property. There were no records of any registered potentially hazardous materials stored hydrologically upgradient from the subject property from the data reviewed in the EDR report. -4- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the size of the property and the presence of several feet of snow during WEI's site visit, a complete site reconnaissance was not possible for this assessment. However, all "accessible" areas, including areas of development and human activities, were inspected. The primary areas of concern regarding potential contamination are: l . The electrical transformer storage area. 2. The sediment trap and associated pond. 3. The area near the historic ASTs. WEI recommends that a Phase II site assessment be performed to determine the extent of subsurface contamination on the subject property, if any. A combination of three methodologies described below is recommended for this Phase II assessment, in order to fully ascertain the extent of soil contamination at the subject property. Time constraints may alter these recommendations and we would be glad to discuss them with you at your request. Because the firm HP-Geotech is scheduled to drill on the site for geotechnical purposes, WEI recommends that borehole drilling for the proposed Phase II site assessment be coordinated with this firm. Drilling a minimum of three boreholes to initially characterize subsurface contamination is recommended. A preliminary cost estimate for a drilling Phase II investigation is outlined below: TABLE 1 - PRELIMINARY COSTS FOR PHASE II DRILLING Description Estimated Costs Standard* Rush** Travel and Expenses $1000 Preliminary Site Preparation $ 200 Drill Rig Time for 3 proposed boreholes*** $1500 WEI field time $3000 Laboratory Analyses $2250 (EPA methods for PCBs, BTEX, TVH and TEH) Summary Report $500 Phase II Drilling Estimated Cost $1000 $ 200 $1500 $3000 $3400 $500 $6,950 $8,100 * Standard time to complete equals 4 weeks. ** Rush time to complete equals 1.5 - 2 weeks. *** HP Geotech proposes to bill the City of Aspen directly, therefore, drill rig costs are not included in the total estimate. -5- Immediately following drilling (or on the same day if time is available), WEI would perform additional field tests to further characterize contamination on the site. This would be accomplished by performing a "Soil -Gas" analysis of subsurface soils. The soil -gas samplers must be buried in the ground for a minimum of seven days. The laboratory results from the Petrex samples would further define the areas of potential contamination and allow for more accurate drilling of potentially contaminated areas. Petrex samplers with analysis cost approximately $200 each. WEI recommends that a grid pattern with 15 Petrex samplers be used. The total cost for the standard Petrex analysis would accordingly be approximately $3,000, not including WEI field time. Additional field testing in the electrical transformer storage area may be performed using the field test kits for PCBs. These tests cost approximately $50 each. WEI recommends that 20-25 samples be tested. Additionally, WEI would recommend sending a selected few of the "positive" soil samples to a laboratory for confirmatory analysis. Laboratory cost for PCB analysis is approximately $150 each. WEI recommends that three soil samples be sent to the laboratory for confirmatory analysis, totalling $450. If the Petrex results or the PCB field test results indicate significant contamination zones in areas outside of those in the initial drilling, it is possible that a follow-up drilling investigation would be recommended. WEI would be able to define the scope of this only after the initial results are obtained. The following is a preliminary cost estimate for the total Phase II site assessment. TABLE 2 - PRELIMINARY COSTS FOR COMPLETE PHASE II SITE ASSESSMENT Standard Rush Drilling and Soil Testing 61950 8,100 Petrex Analysis 5000 6000 Field Screening for PCBs 1450 1450 and lab analysis Interpretive Phase,II report 3000 4000 TOTAL PHASE II COSTS $169400 $199550 WEI would be glad to discuss these recommendations at your convenience. Red Su" r � • ,• • \ . • • • �1 •,� • \ , , ASpen-, Rodeo �.ioun's R�d Butte t Oemetery, • ,_ ' Irk, •. nEyY (Gulch • — .w• •� SUBJECT PROPE'R...........�l. k00 01 17 Q' 0 / ! WASTE ENGINEERING, INC. DRAWN DSS 2430 ALCOTT STREET CHECK PRA DENVER, CO 80211 DATE 4/95 (303)433-2788 SCALE 1" = 2000' FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP 952-034.000 CASTLE RIDGE HOUSING y-- - - - - - - - - t�TRANSFORMER ,� SEDIMENT ',STORAGE AREAVJ n•POND MAINTENANCE BUILDING HISTORIC AST LOCATION RAW WATER BACKWASH POND POND 2 MG. 0 CLEARWELL 0 WEST EAST PLANT CDPLANT o 14 NORTH NOT TO SCALE WASTE ENGINEERING, INC. DRAWN KAL CITY ASPEN FIGURE 2 2430 ALCOTT STREET CHECK PRA COUNTY PITKIN SITE MAP DENVER, CO 80211 DATE 4/6 95 STATE COLORADO CITY OF ASPEN (303)433-2788 SCALE N.T.S. JOB NO. 952-034.000 PROPERTY ACRONYMS • Above Ground Storage Tank (AST) • Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene (BTEX) • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) • Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) • National Priorities List (NPL) • Parts per Billion (ppb) • Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) • Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (TEH) • Total Volatile Hydrocarbons (TVH) • Underground Storage Tank (UST) • United States Geological Survey (USGS) 0 Waste Engineering, Inc. (WEI) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG City of Aspen Property View of maintenance building at left and entrance to property. View of gazebo where AST was historically located. View of electrical transformer storage area. View of transformer and location of one soil -PCB sampling site. View of vehicle dumping sediment from street sweeping activities. View of sediment trap/pond. View of office for water treatment plant at south end of property. View of water holding structure at treatment plant. At ,maim 110 q 11, 1 4 7 1 .fi >;a-- •ram �•_• 'i. .. .' ,5 t� ` � .* .�'' tit - t �= Ar 40 _.. � +� � .' Rom•• v.. • ,, u• ` � _ •.r..` y •.s 7�TG _.. : e v • a [ �r ^wi ''r. ie` . -, _ ✓ 'i !9� a�w 's c���� :a tz •t# '-� •" .'��• �� �.� 1 '��""�, �� � r• + i .' is Yl ,•, .. ♦\`` '` , ''•{ . _ �• -, �.' V` �•� `•tom v.� ' dW 14 . av- . fir. •, rt .c . - .. • `- .' ~ a �.�+mot` art• � - �.s.. :a; !J .1•'L' "��ci ` _��'� ♦ �..._ r,: s , •:, i 'w .. -` ...so 4:.����,�� j;••4'- mac...—' �.t1 . f� j �'IhLtw t Exhibit D The EDR-Radius Map with GeoCheckTM Inquiry Number: 70698.3s March 13, 1995 Environmental Data Resources, Inc Creators of Toxicheck/, The Source For Environmental Risk Management Data 3530 Post Road Southport, Connecticut 06490 Nationwide Customer Service Telephone:1-800-352-0050 Fax: 1-800-231-6802 t..,, .�, ..M:;� 4 • , ..,�� � ••• .t:y�. . � •.. r %v v... • . .-sue' , R�`"EVlE�A1'OF'E1%lR4NMEt',J�l:. =REC4RDSMAINT14lNED 6AW n GO •ERN "i N E J RN,� ' ,tom �.}�'. • . Surrounding Properties: Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the subject property are in the left hand column; those with a lower elevation are in the right hand column. Page numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report (attached as an appendix) where detailed data on individual sites may be reviewed. Sites listed in bold Wics are in multiple databases. NPL: Also known as Superfund, the National Priority List database is a subset of CERCUS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund program. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA. A review of the NPL GsL as provided by EDR, and dated 12/16/1994 has revealed that there is 1 NPL site within approximately 1 Mile of the subject property. Equal/iiigher Elevation Page ` Lower Elevation Page CERCUS: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System contains information on sites identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as known or suspected abandoned, inactive or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that may require cleanup. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA. A review of the CERCUS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/31/1994 has revealed that there is 1 CERCUS site within approximately 0.5 Miles of the subject property. Equal/Higher Elevation Page ( Lower Elevation Page UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. USTs are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The source is the State Oil Inspector's Office's Tank List A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/01/1994 has revealed that there is 1 UST site within approximately 0.25 Miles of the subject property. Equal/Higher Elevation Page Lower Elevation Page ASPEN RANGER STATION 4 RCRIS: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act database includes selected information on sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Act. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA. A review of the RCRIS-LOG list, as provided by EDR, and dated 11 /30/1994 has revealed that there is 1 RCRIS-LOG site within approximately 0.25 Miles of the subject property. Equal/Higher Elevation Page I Lower Elevation Page TC70696.3s Ve Y `VIM"t' I ^ Y•` <��11 1�`•�. ..:.I Y.r t1 .•.+ •1 .•'.. '.� �� , .. • .• ... .: • ':....... t .REV! �!OF i�1i� O.NMEN�'ECORDS: MAINTAINED �Y.• xt v ► �•^.{:'i`n�)' Xt+�cx t t:�j:tR..`Z ��lii lt. `� 11C ~i•...C��.1i�-i• %l'�lt �•%�i "���� �'�t �`•7N!!::"�V.K.':"!�•a���:�``y�,�t�•.'.;�:i!l • �A...r�.:'�J4�'.�:�h"'�i�.�:='V�:l:;i,i�..if��ir�';,�,.n ,�,,tfS�Y.(J� �,,,+�.,� .. ED PRIVATE �SOURCESF�5�.� :• • '�....�.. •► ra::ii >, <•I('(.+e••� SK'/ .. !. :'.1 '.> .:•17` 'G.. rb •••.v..!/'l'. ��..: t<.:.:•.. ✓•'I.'%�(. .Y i. .. .. v. Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: Site Name Database(s) SMUGGLER MTN SUPERFUND SITE CERCUS,FINDS,NPL RCRIS-LQG PtTKIN COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVER State LF GR[aLY RESERVOIR LUST CHEVRON USA INC LUST CITY OF ASPEN STREET DEPT LUST ASPEN TRUCK MAINTENANCE UST CDOH - ASPEN UST RENTAL CAR FUEL FACILITY UST TC70698.3s GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY IRACKING To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required. Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90-day updating requirement of the ASTM standard. FEDERAL ASTM RECORDS: CERCLtS: Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and UaW ity Information System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 703-416-0702 CERCUS: Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability information System. CERCUS contains information on sties identified by the USEPA as known or suspect abandoned, inactive or uncontrolled hazardous waste sties which may require cleanup. Date of Government Version: 10/31/94 Dale of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/16r94 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/30/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 45 ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System - Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-2342 ERNS: Emergency Response Nottficadbn System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases d oll and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version:12131/93 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 04/11/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 05/25/94 Elapsed ASTM days: 44 NPL: National Priority List Source: EPA Telephone: 703-603-M2 NPL: National Priorities List (Superlund). The NPL is a subset of CERCUS and Identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sties may encompass relatively large areas. As such. tt Is EDR's policy to plot NPL sties greater than approximately 500 acres In size as areas (polygons). Sties smaller in size are point-geocoded at the site's address. Date of Government Version: 1 PJ16194 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/21/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/30/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 40 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 202-260-3393 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Date of Government Version: 11/30/94 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/19/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/14/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 57 FEDERAL NOWASTM RECORDS: FINDS: Facility Index System Source: EPAJNTIS Telephone: 800-908-2493 FINDS: Facility Index System. FINDS contains both fadety informialk 1 and 'pointere to other Sources that oorttain more detail. These Include: RCRIS, PCS (Permit Comptlanoe System). AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System), FATES (FIFRA [Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act) and TSCA Enforcement System, FTTS (FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System)), CERCLIS, DOCKET (Enforcement- Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for an envk,onmental statutes). FURS (Federal UndeWwnd Injection Control), FRDS (Federal Reporting Data System), SIA (Surface Impoundments). CIM (TSCA Chemicals in Commerce Information System), PADS. RCRA-J (medical waste transporters/dlsposers). TRIS and TSCA. Date of Govemment Version: 09/14/93 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 03/13/95 PADS: PCB Activity Database System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-3992 PADS: PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transponters, conmmercial scorers and/or brokers and disposers of PCB's who are required to ratify the EPA of such activities. Date of Government Version: 07/11/94 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 03/20/95 RAATS: RCRA Administrative Anion Tracking System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4104 " RAATS: RCRA Administi allon Action Tradokg Syabm. RAATS contains na A based on en l=wnenrt acdons issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and k>dudes administrative and cM actions brought by the EPA. Date of Govemment Version: 04/06/94 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 04/01/95 THIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 202-260-2320 TRIS: Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS Identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. Date of Government Version: 12/31/92 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 10/02/95 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 202-260-1444 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA Identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. ft Includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. USEPA has no current plan to update and/or re -issue this database. Date of Government Version: 05/15/86 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 03/27/95 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Telephone: 202-366-4555 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Goverment Version: 06/30/94 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 05/02/95 NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-3733 NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. Date of Government Version: 10/15/91 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 04/18/95 STATE OF COLORADO ASTM RECORDS: LUST. baking Underground Storage Tank List Source: Department of Health Telephone: 303-69234W LUST: leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank Incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state. Date of Govemment Version: 10/01/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/30/95 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/05/94 Elapsed ASTM days: 56 SHWS: CERCUS Source: Department of Health Telephone: 303-6923300 SHWS: State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sties mayor may not already be listed on the federal CERCUS Gst. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds (state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially responsible parties. Available inforrnation varies by state. Date of Government Version: 10/31/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/30/95 Date of Data Arrtval at EDR: 12/16/94 Elapsed ASTM days: 45 SWF/LS: Solid Waste Sites b Facilities Source: Department of Health Telephone: 303-692.3432 SWFALS: Solid Wane Fadkft*gAndf fl Sites. SWF/LS type records typk Wy contain an Inventory of sold wassie disposal facilities or fandfifta in a particular state. Depending on the state these may be active or inactive Willies or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Section 2004 cxtteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. Date of Govemment Version: 12/01/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/14/95 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/05/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 40 UST: Tank List Source: State Oil Inspector's Office Telephone: 303-289-5644 UST: Registered Underground Storage Tanks. USTs are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available information varies by state program. Date of Govemment Version: 04/01/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 11/02/94 Historical and Other Database(s) Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/02/94 Elapsed ASTM days: 61 Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existenoe and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. ©Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative. Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan, Inc. The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entiti-- other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report, Real Property Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal opinion. Area Radon Infonmadon: The National'Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Probction Agency (USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA1State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Surrey. The study covers the years 198t3 - 1M. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions. FRDS: Federal Reporting Data System Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water FRDS provides Information regarding public water supplies and their compliance with monitoring requirements. maximum . contaminant levels (MCUs). and other requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986. oil/Gas PlpeltnesMectricai Transmission Unes: This data was obtained by EDR tram the USGS in 1994. It Is referred ID by USGS as GeoData Digttai line Graphs from 1:100.000-Scale Maps. lit was extracted from the transportation category incuding some oil, but primarily gas pipelines and electrical transmission Ines. Sensitive Receptors: Them are Individuals who, due to their fragile immune systems, are deemed to be especially sensMw to environmental discharges. These typicatly include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the enact location of these sensitive receptors cannot be determined. EDR Indicates those facilities, such as schools, hospitals, day care centers, and nursing homem where sensttive receptors are likely to be located. USGS Water Wells: In November 1971 the United Stabs Geological Survey (USGS) implemented a national water resource information traddng system. This database contsin s descriptive li forle on sites where the USGS collects or has cdiected data on surface water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data Mdudes Information on more than 900.000 wets. springs, and other sources of groundwater. - Flood Zone Data: This data. aval" In select oou nt es aaMn the country: was obtained by EDR in 1994 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depkts 10D-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. �it.XA�''>. �,�; GEOCHECE.•SUMMARYRSION 2.1*lMft ` t. . r.: .'•; ;. ,J�,� . "'i krx/ .^"�.. �,� '.�.Yr>,?�/. ,� � .> wt v ly .:> ,).... % !S, ••' � '.��y ��' . GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATIOW Geologic Code: Yg1 Era Precambrian System: Precambrian Series: Oder Y granitic rocks ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT Category: Plutonic and Intrusive Rocks GROUNDWATER FLOW INFORMATION General Topographic Gradient: General North General Hydrogeologic Gradient: no hydrogeologtc data available. Note: In a general way, the water table typically conforms to surfaoe topography, FEDERAL DATABASE WELL INFORMATION WELL. DISTANCE DEPTH TO QUADRANT FROM T_P LITHOLOGY WATER TABLE East 1/2 -1 Mile Sedimentary (undifferentiated) 59 ft. AREA RADON INFORMATION PITKIN COUNTY, CO Number of sites tested: 28 Area Average Activity % <4 pCVL Living Area 3.820 pCi/L 46% Basement 3.310 pCi/L 38% PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION Searched by Nearest Well. Location Relative to TP: 1/2. 1 Mile East PWS Name: KRABLDONIK P.O. BOX 5517 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 Well currently has or has had major violation(s): No 4.20 pCVL 43% 54% >20 pCVL 11% 8°/0 1 Source: P.G. Sdirtben, R.E. Amdt and W.J. Baw" c. Geobgy d the Contem*w" U.S. at 12.500.000 Scale - A dtgital representation d the 1974 P.B. long and H.M. Seomun Map. USGS agrW Dale Senes DDS • 11 (1M). I U.S. EPA Ground Waver Handbook. Vd 1: Grand Wafer and CoManrnation. Once o1 Research and de.relopment EPA1625/6901016a.Chapter 4. page 78. Sepwe fiber 1990. TC70698.3s Pagel of 1 - Indicates TARGET PROPERTY. - Indicates environmental sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property. - Indicates environmental sites at elevations lower than the target property. - Coal Gasification Sites (if requested) - National Priority List Sites 0 1/4 1/2 1 Lutes - Power transmission lines (USGS DLG, 1993) - Oil & Gas pipelines (USGS DLG, 1993) TARGET PROPERTY: M -N- CUSTOMER: Waste Engineering, Inc. ADDRESS: CONTACT: Paul Avant CITY/STATE/ZIP: INQUIRY #. 70698.3s LAT/LONG___—__—__—_---DATE: ---- March 9, 1995 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY SHOWING ALL SITES Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1 /8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 Potted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 1 RCRIS TSD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 State Haz. Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CERCUS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 1 State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 LUST 0sw 0 0 0 NR NR 0 UST 0.250 0 1 NR NR NR 1 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Lg. Ouan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 1 HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 1 TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 Coal Gas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TP - Target Property NR - Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database TC70698.3s Page 1 of 4 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY SHOWING ONLY SITES HIGHER THAN OR THE SAME ELEVATION AS TP Search Total Target Distance Property (Miles) < 1 /8 1/8-1/4 1 /4 -1 /2 1/2-1 > 1 Potted Database NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 RCRIS-TSD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 State Hal- Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 State Landfill 0sw 0 0 0 NR NR 0 LUST 0sw 0 0 0 NR NR 0 UST 0250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR. NR 0 RCRIS Sm. Ouan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Lg. Ouan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 Coal Gas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TP - Target Property NR - Not Requested at this Search Distance • Sites may be listed in more than one database TC70698.3s Page 2 of 4 MAP FINDINGS Map 10 Dkedion Distance Elevatlon Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number Coal Gas Site Search: EDR does not presently have coal gas site Information available in this state. NPL SMUGGLER MTN SUPERFUND SITE Region SPRUCE ST ASPEN. CO 81611 CERCUS FINDS NPL RCRIS-LQG 111 it .. •• 0 • :•1•-- :r CERCUS Classification Data Site Incident Category. MINES/TAILINGS Federal Facility: NO Ownership Status OTHER NPL Status: CURRENTLY ON THE FINAL NPL ZN,PB,CD.CONTAM. IN OLD MINE. TAIUNGS, BLOWING DUST.GROUND AND SURFACE EPA Notes WATER CONTAM. HRS - 33.121N 3/84. NPL SITE APPROK 110 ACRES, NEAR ASPEN COLD. CERCUS Assessment History: - Assessment SCREENING SITE INSPECTION Completed: 12101/84 Assessment DISCOVERY- Completed: 03/01/83 Assessment PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Completed: 12101/84 Assessment FINAL LISTING ON NPL Completed: 06/01/86 Assessment PROPOSAL TO NPL Completed: 10/15/84 Assessment REMOVAL ACTION Completed: 09117/85 Assessment REMOVAL ACTION Completed: 08/22191 CERCUS Site Status: This site is currently under investigation by the government to assess the extent of further action CERCLIS Alias Name(s): ASPEN NPL ID: 08CO020 Date Listed: 6/10/86 (FINAL) EPA/ID: COD980806277 Haz. Rank Score: 31.31 Status: LISTED ON NPL Rank: 929 Group: 19 Ownership: Private Permit: Not reported Site Activities: Mining Site. Subsurface Site Condition: Damage of Flora/Fauna Site Condition: Contamination of Soil Site Condition: Contam. Ground Water Site Condition: Contam. Drinking Water Waste Type: Metals Waste Type: Mine Tailings Waste Form: Not reported Contaminant: Media Affected: CADMIUM (CD) Ground Water ZINC AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (ZN) Ground and Surface Water IRON AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (FE) Surface Water MANGANESE AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (MN) Surface Water LEAD (PB) Not reported TC70698.3s Page 3 of 4 MAP FINDINGS Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site SMUGGLER MTN SUPERFUND SITE (Continued) EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA 10 Number 1000234566 Distance to nearest Population: Not reported Population within a 1 Mlle Radius: 3,001 to 10,000 People Population wtthin a 2 Mile Radius: Not reported Population within a 4 Mile Radius: More than 10,000 People Vertical Distance to Aquifer: Not reported Ground Water Use: Not Used as Drinking Water, Alternative Source Available Distance to nearest Surlace Water. Not reported RCRIS: Owner: US EPA. (999) 999-9999 ContactPAULA SCHMITTDIEL (303) 293-1527 Waste Cluantity Into Source Waste Quantity Into Source D000 Not reported Notification D006 Not reported Notification D008 Not reported Notification ' Other Pertinent Environmental Activtty klentified at Site: civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases against facility 1 ASPEN RANGER STATION NNE 806 W. HALLAM STREET 118-1/4 ASPEN, CO 81611 Lower UST: LIST 0000086877 N/A Facility ID: 0002258 Tank ID: 1 Facility Tel: (303) 945-3274 Facility Type: Federal Non -Military Age: Not reported Total Tanks: 1 Date Installed: Not reported Date last Used: 12/01/1960 Date Closed Not reported Owner ID: 5558 Owner Name: U.S.F.S. - WHITE RIVER DIST. Owner Address: P.O. BOX 948 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 Owner Tel: 303-945-2521 Owner Type: Federal Status: Permanently Out of Use Removed from Ground 12-01-60 Construction: Steel Tank Capacity: LINK Tank Chemical: Gasoline TC70698.3s Page 4 of 4 i Q � s J cn Q U J a z ai 0 z R `n LL J NN~ ~ W r LL c 400D cCDD m q m m m m N m 4 c cc � m O Q ¢ Q z Z + O w g r o w O$a ain. z WQ J- z W V) Q a LL � w O u, CD D�03 v 04 ODcc Q W W ~ U C/) w w C:) ¢ I Z W5 � a o LL J Q LLJ w�W. a� > z(nn� w¢ w ~ LL cwnv�a�W¢z m z Q W 0 v 0 r o LL J a J U N z¢ o s s z aw> DOz Y Q ( _ m 0 w cO aUUCl) Ucc I 00cornCDvvo t- co (D 0 CD CO rn o Q, CD rn rn Lf) CO CO Ln (D un iA v CD CD co co c,) CO ao rn 0 00 0 0 0 0 o cD 0 00 0 0 00 00 00 0 � U c r S U U) z z z z z z z z w w w w w w w w a. an. aa.aaa a a a a a a Q to ,r , ,EPA Waste bodes �A >., . ... d du �� • :r .` r rr is FS' �i� (t ; ..en Code Desaipbon D000 NOT DEFINED DoO6 CADMIUM Doo8 LEAD TC70698.3s - Page 1 of 1 CEOCHECK VERSION ZI ADDENDUM • •� � . ,•ram �' �:�:, i .,ytr,,. �...,: `. �. .. •. •.. �.: �.. -..'. .,:�. svy'i�A 7f'� 'k � K�y"y'lc �. FEDERAL�DATABASE WELT. �NFORMI�770N Well Closest to Target Property (East Ouadrant) BASIC WELL DATA Site ID: 391113106490301 Distance from TP: 1/2 - 1 Mile Site Type: Single well, other than collector or Ranney type Year Constructed: 19W County- Pitkin Aluttude: 7930.00 ft. State: Colorado Well Depth: 159.00 ft. Topographic Setting: Alluvial or marine terrace Depth to Water Table: 59.00 ft, Prim. Use of Site: Withdrawal of water Date Measured: 10011973 Prim. Use of Water. Public supply LITHOLOGIC DATA Geologic Age ID (Era/SystemfSeries): Cenoao-Ouatemary-Holocene Principal Lithology of Untt: Sedimentary (undifferentiated) Further Description: Not Reported WATER LEVEL VARIABILITY Water Level: 58.86 ft. Water Level: 65.00 ft Water Level: 58.62 ft. Date Measured: 10/03/73 Date Measured: • 10/16/74 Date Measured: 09/26/75 Water Level: 69.65 ft. Water Level: Not Reported Walef Level: 68.35 ft. Date Measured: 08/11/77 Date Measured: 09/05178 Date Measured: 10/09/79 Water Level: 61.13 ft Water Level: 59.73 ft Date Measured: 08/21/81 Date Measured: 08/25/82 Water Level• 60.65 fL Date Measured: 09/09/76 Water Level+ 58.16 ft. Date Measured: 08/2W TC70698.3s Page 1 of 2 GEOCHECK VERSION 21 ; ... "• s . �. PUBLlC WATER SUP 1.Y: SYSTEMlNFORMA1'ION Y '♦ r ^ ... .lN � .. .. ..• .�J••• ..� •.tom♦'w .. f.� ♦i(YY '�f •t Y� Searched by Nearest Well. PWS SUMMARY: PWS ID: C00249455 PWS Status: Active Distance from TP: 1/2 -1 Mile Dir relative to TP: East Date Initiated: June / 1977 Date Deactivated Not Reported PWS Name: KRABLDONIK P.O. BOX 5517 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 Addressee / Facility Type: Not Reported Facility Name: Not Reported Facility Latitude: 39 11 24 Facility Longitude: 106 49 06 Clty Served: Not Reported: Treatment Class Not Reported Population Served: Not Reported: Well currently has or has had major viola ion(s): No TC70698.3s Page 2 of 2 MAY. -01' 95 (MON) 16:55 WRIGHT WATER TEL:303 480 1020 P. 002 W41012.I * - •�9 TO: Cris Caruso City of Aspen - Engineering Department FROM: Paul Avant RE: Update of Phase 11 Site Assessment Results Date: May 1, 1995 This memorandum summarizes the field investigations and analytical results to date for the City of Aspen property at the Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant. v Waste Engineering, Inc. (WEI) performed the Limited Authorized Phase II field Z investigations at the site on April 14, 1995. Three areas were the focus of this investigation: z Z 1. The electrical transformer storage area, a W W 2. The water/sediment pit used for disposal by City street - sweeping vehicles, and Z 3. The location of two historic above -ground storage tanks W (ASTs) which have been removed from the site. W N to Q ELECTRICAL TRANSFORNLER STORAGE AREA The electrical transformer storage area is situated northeast of the maintenance shop and is within the area for proposed housing development. Numerous electrical transformers are scattered throughout this area. The transformers' estimated ages range from 20 --ars to very new (i.e, 1 to 2 years old). WEI collected ten surficial soil samples within the electrical transformer storage area. Field test kits were used to screen for possible polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) soil contamination from leaking transformers. Three "positive" test kit soil samples and one "negative" sample were sent to Phoenix Analytical Labs in Broomfield, Colorado for confirmatory analysis. All four samples were below detection limit for PCB contents. The positive readings from the field test kits may have been caused by chlorinated compounds other than PCBs. Phoenix Labs is currently reviewing the lab reports to determine if any other regulated chlorinated compounds such as solvents were present in these samples. MAY. -01' 95 (MON) 1 b : 55 WRIGHT WATER TEL: 303 480 1020 P. 003 Cris Caruso Page 2 The PCB contents of the individual transformer units were not investigated by WEI. In the event of transformer disposal, each transformer is required to be tested for PCB contents. The PCB contents will dictate the proper disposal method. WEI recommends that any transformers which have not been tested for PCB contents be tested to determine their regulatory status. WATF.It/SEDI1ViENT PIT The water/sediment pit is used by City of Aspen street -sweeping vehicles for disposal of stormwater and sediment. The pit is approximately 800 square feet in dimension. The water within the pit is estimated to be three to four feet deep, with six-foot banks to top of ground, WEI drilled two boreholes at the upgradient and downgradient end of the pit. Soil samples were tested in the field for organic vapors. The soil sample with the highest OVM reading was sent to the lab for analysis of fuel -related compounds and metals. All metals were found to be below detection limits, with the exception of barium which was found at a level far below the regulatory limit. Fuel -related compounds were also primarily below detection limits. Those compounds which were detected were in compliance with remedial action category (RAC) level 1 limits. This is the most stringent category the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment uses when the soils are in contact with groundwater that can be used for municipal water supply. A sediment sample for the bottom of the pit was also analyzed for fuel -related compounds and metals. The analytical results were very similar to those for the borehole sample. No hazardous levels were identified. HISTORIC ABOVE -GROUND STORAGE TANKS Two above -ground storage tanks were used at this site from approximately 1985 to 1990. The tanks were used to store fuel. One borehole was drilled during WEI's investit ztion to check for possible soil staining. No fuel readings above background levels were observed at this one location_ 'Therefore, no soil samples were sent to the lab for confummatory analysis. Due to the presence of approximately two feet of snow and not having the knowledge of the exact location of the two ASTs, WEI can not confirm that no soil contamination occurred in this area. WEI recommends that a follow-up visit be performed after snowmelt to investigate possible soil staining and subsequent contamination. MAY, -01' 95 (MON) 16: 56 WRIGHT WATER TEL:303 480 1020 P. 004 E E Cris Caruso Page 3 t t i ITEMS TO COMPLETE THE WEI-RECOMNMNDED PHASE If ASSESSMENT E Items yet to be completed as a part of WEI's presently -authorized Phase II limited investigation include final analysis of soil samples for chlorinated hydrocarbons and 4 E interpretation of these analyses. i In addition to the limited authorized work, WEI recommends going forward with the remainder of the Phase II work originally recommended by WEI. WEI also recommends testing of all transformers at the site that have not previously been tested for PCB content. This last item is outside the original recommend scope presented by WEI. A cost estimate can be completed for this additional work after an accurate accounting is supplied to WEI of which transformers have recently been tested. PRA: TH /pm 1a! MEMOSW-Canmo.PRA 952-034.0I 0 MAY. -01' 95 (MON) 16: 56 WRIGHT WATER i 3034693130 PHOEN I X R►d_YT I CAL a I? i F 25—Apr i 1--95 Paul Avant Waste Engineering, Inc. 2430 Alcott Strut Denver, Co S0211 P. A. L. PROJECT: 7290 CLIENT PROJECT: 952-034.010 TEL:303 480 1020 P.005 P-917 T-21A P-002 APR 25 '95 16;56 Dear Pauli Enclosed ere the results of the rush TCLP Metals analyses for the moil samples from your Aspen Housing Phase 2 project. The samples were received by Phoenix+ Analytical a" April 16, 1995, No metals were detected at levels greater than the TCLP maximum contaminant limit. Please note that due to poor ■atrim spike recoveries for Selahiuml the sanplas were analyzed by the Mathod of Standard Additions. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Wendy Lively Sehall Cheai�t 3401 industrial lane • broomfield, colorado 80020 • 303/469-1101 MAY. -01' 95 (MON) 16:56 WRIGHT WATER 3034693130 PHOEN J X RNPLYT t CAL E: f TEL:303 480 1020 P.006 F-917 T-214 P-003 APR 25 '95 16:56 PHOENIX ANALYTICAL LABS LABORATURIES SUMMARY REPORT rNC REPORT DATE: 04/25/95 CLIENT: WASTE ENGIHEENINGe INC. ANALYSIS t TCLP KETALS by SW-846 131i'%acd. 3010'�700m SERIES CLIENT PROJECT: 952-034#010 ASPEN HOUSING PHASE 2 P . A. L. P ROJECT i 7290 ! DATE SAMPL.EDs 04/14/93 DATE RECEIVED: 04/18/95 DATE EXTRACTED: 04/18/95 DATE DIGESTED: 04/19/95 SAMPLE I. D.: WE-1 PAL* 68390 SAMPLE MATRIXt SOLID EXTRACT KATRIX: WATER FOUND SPIKE RE13 ANALYSIS/ CAS NO. CONC. RtCOVERY LEVEL DATE ARALYZED ARSENIC 04/21 /95 7440-3a-2 <0.002 80 5.0 BARIUM 04/21/95 7440-39--3 0.6 80 100.0 CADMIUM 04/20/95 7440-43-9 <0.02 gd 1.0 CHROMIUM 04/20/95 7440-47-3 c0.02 83 5.0 LEAD 04/24/95 7439-92-1 <0.1 103 5.0 MERCURY 04/21 /95 7439-97-6 <0. 0005 100 0.2 SELENIUM 04/20/95 7782-45-2 .40001 S -- 1.0 SILVER 84/20/95 7440-22-4 c0.05 100 5.0 S : Sample analyzed by Method of Standard Additiona due to for ustrix ®pike reoov0rioa. W4 REPORTED BYs A REVIEWED pYt Ile 3401 industrial line 6 broomiield, Colorado 80020 + 303/469-1101 MAY. -OF 95 (MON) 16: 57 3034693130 WRIGHT WATER TEL:303 480 1020 P.007 PHOENIX ANALYTICAL F-91? T-214 P-004 APR 25 195 16:5? E PHOENa ANALYMAL ANALYTICAL LABS iCaRZIRIES PHoENIx SUMMARY REPORT REPORT DATE: 04/23/93 CLIENT: HASTE ENGIHEERING, IKC. ANALYSIS s TC1•P METALS by SW 1311\eod. 3010\7000 SERIES CLIENT PROJECT, 952-034.010 ASPEN HOUSING PHASE 2 P. A. L. PROJECT: 7290 DATE SAMPLED: 04/14/9S DACE RECEIVED: 04/iB/95 DATE EXTRACTEDt 04/18/95 DATE DIGESTED: 04/19/95 S AXPLE I . D.: WPS-1 PAL# 68391 SAMPLE MATKIXI SOLID EXTRACT MATRIX, WATER FOUND SPIKE RES ANALYSIS/ CAS MO. CONC. RECOVERY LEVEL DACE ANALYZED tmBl1� t%t) tsg/1) ARSENIC 04/21/95 7440-38-2 <0.002 63 5.0 BARIUM 04/21 /95 7440-►39-3 1.2 98 160.0 CADMIUM 04/20/95 7440-43-9 <0.02 9a 1.0 CHROMIUM C4/20/95 7440-47-2 <a.02 a9 5.0 LEAD 04/24/95 7439-92-1 40,1 l03 5.0 MERCURY 04/21/95 7439-97-6 <0.0005 110 0.2 SELENIUM 04/20/95 7782-49-2 <0.01 S♦ -- 1.0 SILVER 04/20/95 7440-22-4 <0. 105 3.00 5.0 S Sample analyzed by Method of Standard Additions due to lov matrix apika reoovertee. . + t Correlation CoallIcient 40.995. AotuB1 value = 0.993. Implication in that value could be .biased alightly lov. WU5 REPORTED BYt REVIEWED BYI." t 3401 Industrial lane • broomfield, colorado 80020 a 303/469-1101 MAY. -01' 95 (MON) 16:57 WRIGHT WATER TEL:303 480 1020 P. 008 3034693130 PHOENIX ANALYTICAL F-920 T-215 P-002 APR 25 195 17:03 21-Apr-95 PHOENIX 3 ANALYnC:AL I rABORN 1 l 11 IFS Paul Avant Waste Engineering, Inc. 2430 Alcott Denver, CO 80211 P.A.L. Project: 7290 Client Project: 952-034.010 Dear Paul: Eaclo9cd are the results of the EPA 8260 BTEXgvH analysis for the soil samples submitted on April 19, 1995. please note that in Addition to toluene, several terpenes were detected in sample W,E'S-•1. All of the terpenes were at very low concentrations (<10µVKg). Their respective values are listed in the raw data for the sample... The BTEXJTVH analysis encompasses hydrocarbons ranging from.C4 - C14 in carbon distribution. The TVH value includes the BTEC analytes, other aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic and olefinic hydrocarbons, and oxygenated petroleum additives, such as MTBE, if they are present in the sample. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, nIe F� n Laboratory Manager 00� 3401 industrial lane broomfield, colorado 80020 303/469-1101 JLH--13-1996 14:58 FROM WRIGHT WATER GLNWD SPGS TO 9205197 P.02 PRASE D ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT CASTLE CREEK WATER TREATMENT PLANT PITKIN COUNTY AWN, COLORADO 81611 PREPARED FOR: MR. DAVI D 1IUT'ER CITY OF ,ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PREPARED BY: WASTE ENGINEERING, -INC. 818 COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (970) 945-7755 JUNE 13, 1996 JOB NO. 952-034*010 JLN-13-1996 14:59 FROM WRIGHT WATER GLNWD SPGS TO 920519? P.03 INTRODUCTION This report represents the findings of Waste Engineering Inc.'s (WEI's) envservices related to the continuation of a Pbase U Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the City of Aspen, Colorado. The assessment was completed at the water treatment plant stud Maintenance yard located at 500 Doolittle Drive in Aspen, Colorado. Recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site were identified during the preparation of a Phase I (dated April 7, 199,5) for the Site. These recognized environmental conditions are as follows - the electrical transformer storage area . the sediment trap and associated pond . the historic AST location WEI completed a limited Phase II ESA investigation on April 14, 1995. WEI's evaluation of the three recognized environmental conditions have been initially addressed in a me wrandu m nucl jral, nadt swd Lu Nh. Cluis Causu uC am City of Aspcu dawd May 1, 1995 anti May 18, 1995, respectively. WEI's Agreement of Services for further evaluating Sitar conditions as outlined above were suspended indefinitely by the City of Aspen ineermi Department following review of correspondence submitted to Mr. Caruso. The continued Phasc H ESA cvaluation of the Site, contained Herr -in, was peaformcd in accordance with WEI's agreement dated January 26,1996 and amended by W. David Huter on May 3, 1996. Field activities commenced on May 9, 1996 following adequate snow melt to allow access to the Site. The purpose of this portion of the Phase II BSA was to further evaluate those recognized environmental conditions identified during the Phase I ESA and the initial Please 11 WA in April 1995. A description of sampling activities and observations is presented in the following text. TASK I - PASSM SOIL GAS SURVEY On April 29, 1996, WEI initiated a passive soil gas survey at the Site. The purpose of the analysis was primarily to evaluate potential fuel contaminated soils associated with the general location of a former Above Ground Storage Tank (AST). The soil gas testing was also used to evaluate potential hydrocarbon contamination of soils within the electrical transformer storage area and adjacent to the sediment pond. A total of nine soil gas samplers were strategically positioned to evaluate the former AST site. Four soil gas samplers were. located inside the transformer storage area and two were located near the sediment pond. Two soil gas samples were located near visually identified surface stains associated with leaking transformers which were subsequently sampled for chlorinated hydrocarbons. (See Figure 1 for soil gas sample locations . ) All soil gas samplers were retrieved on May 9, 1996, placed under chain of custody, and submitted to TEG Laboratories in Evergreen, Colorado. The samples were analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) by EPA Method 8015 and Benzene, Toluene, Ethyibenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) by EPA Method 8020 and Methane. JUN-0-i%G 14:59 FROM WRIGHT WATER GLNWD SPGS TO 9205197 P.04 The soil gas analytical results are summarized in the attached table. Copies of the analytical results will be forwarded when received. y The Passive Soil Vapor Survey indicates that concentrations of 2.7 to 49.8 ppmv for TpH and 3.8 to 22.0 ppmv for Methane were detected in the soil gas samples Witted for analysis. Concentrations of BT.EX were nat detected iu the samples. Analytical results for sample T3 are not available as the sample media was destroyed during shipment. Soil gas samples number 1, 2, 3, and 6 are representative of the transfomer storage area. Analytical results of 6.7 and 9.4 ppmv are representative of locations 1 and 6 near soil stains associated with suspected leakage from transformers. The higl='t uui=ntrations of 40.4 ppmv for location T5, 49.8 ppmv for location T8 and 35.6 for location T11 are representative of the sediment pond are, and two locations near the historic AST location, respectively. Sample T8 and I'll are not located contiguously, TASK H - CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS As part of the limited Phase it ESA performed in April of 19957 surface soils located .near leaking transformers were field screened and found to contain hydrocarbons. Laboratory testing confirmed that these soils did not contain PC,B's; however, the testing was limited to PCB analysis. To further evaluate the surface soil conditions for potential volatile hydrocarbon contamination concentrations, three locations were re -sampled in this study, placed under chain of cusWdy, and submitted to an independent laboratory for Volatile Organic Compounds analysis Method 8260. Copies of the analytical results are included as an a The laboratory results indicate that volatile hydrocarbon concentrations for the three stained soil samples are below laboratory detection limits. VOC's were not detected in soil samples 1, 2, and 3 above test method analytical tegulatory limits. Concentration of 66 ug/Kg for 1, 2, 4- Trimethylbenzene and 250 ug/Kg for Acetone were detected in soil sample 3 above instnunent detection linaits. TASK III - TESTINC OF ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS FOR FCB CONTENT At the time of WEI's field testing (4/29/96), the Site contained approximately 40 t imformrs. WEI's proposal dated January 26, 1996 included -PCB evaluation of these transformers on an individual basis. However, WEI was informed by W. David Huter of dw City of Aspen that individual transformer analysis had been performed by the City internally. Subsequently, this item was deleted from WEI's original proposed scope of services. -2- JUN-0-1996 15:00 FROM WRIGHT WATER GLNWD SPGS TO 9205197 P.05 CONCLUSIONS The concclatrations of volatile organic hydrocarbons detected in soil sample r=bey 3 are below test method reporting limits and would not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment, and generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action, if brought to thhe attention of appropriate governments] ages ir.a. Passive soil gas survey analytical test its revealed that only deminimuts concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soils at the Site. The soil vapor concentrations detected would not typically trigger an enforcement action or present a health risk, and are probably related to sma11 unrelated gas spills from vehicles used at d= Site. At this time, WEI does not recommend An%her environmental evaluation of the Site. We do. however, recommend that when the transformers are removed from the Site that visibly stained soils should also be cleaned up and properly disposed in accordance with used oil regulations (40 C:FR 279 SubPart Q. LII MATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted Gn�riranmental engineering practices in this area to evaluate the nature And extent of subsurface hydrocarbon contamination. The information submitted in this report is based upon the data obtained from the laboratory testing and field observation made at the. Site. The nature and extent of subsurface variations betweensampling locations may not be completely defined by the data obtained. It is possible that additional testing and sampling could alter the conclusions of this report. This assessment is based on the information available to WEI at the time of the investigation and provides an indication of the status of the Site at that time. The opinions expressed cowxadng the environmental risks or migration of cuuouuinants arc specificany addressed in this report. A complete definition of the Site conditions would require substantial besting and a more detailFA investigation. Future conditions may change and further investigation should be completed if contamination is suspected or if Site conditions substantially change. Because of uncertainties related to subsurface conditions and the changing nature of Site conditions, it is slut possible for WEI to provide guarantees with this assessment. Respectively submitted, WASTE ENGINEERING, INC. By; 0-%, '� By: , D. Craig Hey enberk Timothy H. Axley Environmental Seient' t Geologist /DCH/THA 9S2-034.010 -3- JUN-14-1996 07:28 FROM WRIGHT WATER GL.NWD SPGS TO :AS s L_ RIDGE ADUSING alto TRANSFORMER STORAGE AMA DUMPS" MR i It AST LOCATION iI • � j OF ONE POL! (Allog'VS. WORT.# PETREX SURFACE SCII, 1 't '�07ri SAMPLES 'k`' �' 1 G i� [ iNG. INC. :uw� DRY ..� CITY �, EN 2l; � ALZO-1 - S? I:F t �if��ls DC COUNTY ",' r •�• MAP .I 01;2 ' y uy �113 �11 �11 kyj I TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 3 ("Top of Mill") Planned Unit Development (PUD) Conceptual Review - Continued Public Hearing DATE: July 2, 1996 SUMMARY: On June 24, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a site visit to the Top of Mill site and the applicants made a presentation specifically for Lot 3 of the PUD. The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report for review by the City, and staff has referred the report to the State Geologist for comments. Consistent with the conceptual nature of the submittal, staff has summarized the project's compliance with both subdivision and conceptual PUD requirements. Staff has identified the need for additional information regarding the potential visual .impacts from Aspen Mountain and Lift lA, and is awaiting comments from the State regarding the geologic constraints on the property. Staff recommends that the Commission identify additional information or issues that should be addressed by the applicant, and table the application until July 23,1996 to allow for comments from the State Geologist. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW: The project is being processed as a four -step application, with reviews occurring at different steps. Staff has summarized the timing of specific requests below. 1 Step 1 - P & Z Step 2 -Council Step 3 - P & Z Step 4 -Council Conceptual PUD Conceptual PUD Final PUD Final PUD Subdivision Subdivision Text Amendment Text Amendment Rezoning Rezoning July 2, 1996 Not Scheduled Conditional Use 8040 Greenline Not Scheduled Notes: Italics represent public hearings Viewplane Not Scheduled APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Sunny Vann and John Sarpa LOCATION: Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD. Lot 3 is located at the southern end of Mill Street and adjacent to the base of Aspen Mountain. The parcel lies between two fingers of ski terrain which extend to Lift 1 A to the west and the Little Nell gondola to the east. The parcel is bounded on the north by Fifth Avenue and 700 South Monarch condos and Lot 2 of the Aspen Mountain PUD, which contains the Summit Place residential project. The Mountain Queen condominiums are located immediately west of Lot 3. The Aspen Mountain Ski Area borders the parcel on the south, and an unnamed ski run traverses the southwest corner of the parcel. 1 ZONING: Lot 3 is zoned L/TR PUD, Lodge/Tourist Residential; R-15 (PUD) (L), Moderate Density Residential; and C (PUD), Conservation. The entire parcel is designated PUD, Mandatory Planned Unit Development. The R-15 portion is also designated L, Lodge Overlay, which permits lodges as a condition use subject to compliance with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. An existing conditions map depicting the current zoning is shown on page 20 of the application. Existing zoning regulations would allow one single-family home on the site. LOT AREA: 242,813 gross square feet, or approximately 5.5 acres. When the vacated portion of Mill Street and the Summit Street Easement is subtracted, the remainder for purposes of calculating PAR is reduced to 236,320 square feet. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Savanah proposes to subdivide Lot 3 into eight development parcels and two open space parcels. Six townhouse units are proposed for Parcel 1 adjacent to Mill Street on the northernmost portion of the site. Each of the three story units will contain four bedrooms and approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area. Two duplexes are proposed for Parcel 2, in the vicinity of the existing Black duplex. These four units will also contain four bedrooms and approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area. Parcel 3, located immediately south of Parcel 2, will contain a single duplex in similar configuration as the two lower duplexes. Parcels 4, 5, 65 7, and 8, located at the southernmost portion of Lot 3, will contain a detached single-family dwelling unit. The units will contain five bedrooms and will range in size from approximately 5,200 square feet to 6,500 square feet of floor area. Open Space Parcel A is located at the terminus of Mill Street between Parcel 1 and the development parcels. Open Space Parcel B is located at the southwest corner of Lot 3. The applicant is requesting that the open space easement be modified from configuration approved with the original PUD. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments from the following departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "A" with summaries as follows: Environmental Health: Environmental Health has reviewed the project, and does not anticipate impacts to downstream water quality, air quality, noise or water/sewer services. Engineering_De�artment: The Engineering Department is now responsible for compiling comments from Parks, Water, Electric and Streets as well as comments from Engineering staff. The memo from Engineering is lengthy, and reflects the need for further discussion regarding utility needs and drainage issues. The actual meaning of the $250,000 contribution for a drainage study cited in Engineering's memo has not been resolved. A meeting is scheduled between the applicant and staff on June 28, 1996 to discuss issues related to the drainage and master planning issues. Housing: The Housing Office has reviewed the project, and Dave Tolen has indicated that no 'additional housing will be required for the residential portion of the project. The applicant has provided' 198.5 units, while current employment is 185. The mitigation requirements associated with prior PUD approvals and amendments assumed the development of the 47 units proposed for Lots 3 and 5. Parks Department: Parks requested that all previously granted easements should remain in place, which is not consistent with the intent of the applicant. A meeting is scheduled between the applicant and staff on June 28, 1996 to further discuss trail and easement issues. Additional Comments: Due to the historical complexity of the project, the City contracted with Alan Richman to review the application from the perspective of the past agreements and amendments to the PUD. Mr. Richman's comments germane to Lot 3 are summarized below, and attached as Exhibit B: 1. On page 2 of Mr. Richman's memo is a summary of the previous approval process that was conducted for Lot 3 in 1984. The previous proposal for 33 units was granted conceptual approval, but was tabled due to issues arising from a review by the State Geologist that recommended further analysis for landslide, debris movement and mudflow potential on the site. Staff notes that the application has been forwarded to the State Geologist for comments, but no response has been received to date; 2. The description of the Ski Club condition on page 22 of the application is accurate. The applicant has indicated that discussions are on -going in regards to relocation, although a definitive site has not been finalized; 3. On page 25 of the application reference is made regarding the payment of $250,000 to the City for the preparation. and implementation of an Aspen Mountain Drainage Plan. This payment relieved the applicant of a prior commitment to provide on -site detention facilities within the open space easement at the top of the property. The study has not been conducted, and the money is currently held in escrow by the City. Mr. Richman points out that the representation regarding the statement that "stormwater generated as a result of the development of Lot 3 is to mitigated by the City" may not be accurate; 4. The proposal to rezone the portion of the property currently zoned R 15 to L/TR was also considered in 1984, and was rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission due to inconsistencies with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan and FAR issues; Park dedication fees are still applicable to the proposed residential units on Lot 3. STAFF COMMENTS PUD CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, a development application for PUD review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Staff has framed the responses in the context of conceptual issues, consistent with this stage of the review. General Requirements A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The 1993 AACP did not make any specific recommendations regarding Lots 3 of the Aspen Mountain PUD, however the "Proposed Pedestrian System" map does identify the "Top of Mill Trail", which crosses Lot 3, as a recreational trail component. The applicant proposes to vacate the easement due to topographic constraints (see page 45 of application). Staff notes that the Parks Department and the applicant differ in regards to the abandonment of the trail easement. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The area in the vicinity of Lot 3 is a diverse mix of multi -family condominium structures, duplexes and scattered single family homes. In staff s opinion, the project does not represent a design or use completely out of line with existing land uses. Height: The allowable height in the L/TR and C zone district is 28', consistent with the proposed structures. One issue identified during fieldwork was the viewplane impact of the duplex on Parcel 2 on the Fifth Avenue Condos. Staff would suggest that the applicant consider stepping down the duplex to reduce this impact. Bulk: The architectural design of the proposed units is transitional in nature, and does not have the urban character of the Dean Street Building. The design also provides a transition from the existing high density multi -family structures to the north and west and the low density single-family and duplex units which are proposed on the upper portion of Lot 3. The design proposes articulated roofs and facades which "step up" the slope. A critical issue from Staffs perspective is that the visual impacts of the project are not isolated to adjacent structures, but should also consider the viewplanes from Aspen Mountain and Lift IA. Staff would suggest that the applicant provide either computer -generated images (similar to the Dean Street photographs) or other depiction methods to assist staff and the Commission in evaluating the impacts of the project. Consistency with the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines: The applicable section of the Goals for the Aspen Mountain Neighborhood are attached as Exhibit C. Specific components applicable to Lot 3 include the need to enhance the pedestrian experience at the street level, protect views of Aspen Mountain, and promote a sense of visual integration in the neighborhood while also encouraging a diversity of building types. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The project does not appear to adversely impact the development of the surrounding area. The project is consistent with adjacent height, setback, and FAR restrictions. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: As discussed at length at the work session and described in the application, no GMQS allocations are required for the development.. Thirty-nine of the forty-seven residential units proposed for Lots 3 and 5 are to be developed utilizing reconstruction credits which were previously approved by the City and confirmed in the Amended PUD Agreement. The remaining eight residential credits were obtained via the GMQS process. Final approval can be granted to the project following the completion of the PUD review process, without further GMQS approvals or, allocations. Staff notes that the GMQS allocations are maximum ceilings for development of Lot 3 and 5, and in no way should be considered approved densities on either parcel. The applicant has viewed this issue from the perspective that these allocations represented an agreement between the City and the applicant. During discussions regarding Lot 5, the Commission agreed with the applicant, with an exception that if geologic or physical constraints reduced the buildability of either parcel, the Commission could approve densities less than those contained in the PUD agreement. Staff is awaiting a response from the State Geologist on the Geotech Report prior to advising the Commission on this issue. Additional PUD Standards 1. Density: The L/TR zone district requires 1,000 square feet of lot area per bedroom. The applicant is proposing 83,600 square feet of floor area, which represents an FAR of .88:1. The L/TR zone district, assuming rezoning approval; would allow an FAR of 1:1. 2. Land Uses: Multi -family dwellings are a permitted use in the L/TR zone district. 3. Dimensional Requirements: The dimensional requirements of the project are consistent with the L/TR zone district in terms of height, FAR, lot size, minimum required lot area and setbacks. 4. Off-street Parking: 46 off-street spaces are provided, which exceeds the requirement of 34 spaces per Ordinance 30, Series of 1995. Additional parking is available on the garage aprons. 5. Open Space: The L/TR zone district has a minimum open space requirement of 25%, and the conservation zone has no open space requirement. The current R 15 zoning requires no open space. Assuming rezoning approval to L/TR, the applicant would be required to provide 34,170 sq. ft. of open space, and is proposing 60,260 sq, ft.. 6. Landscape Plan: A detailed landscape plan will be provided and reviewed with the final PUD Plan .application. 7. Architectural Site Plan: An architectural site plan will be provided with the Final PUD application, 8. Lighting: All lighting will be designed to minimize impacts on neighboring development and streets. A detailed lighting plan will be provided with the Final PUD application. 9. Clustering: Not applicable 10. Public Facilities: Existing facilities are adequate to service the project, and all costs associated with the provision of facilities will be born by the applicant. Staff notes that the applicant has had on -going conversations with Engineering, and staff would suggest that the majority of infrastructure issues should be discussed at final PUD submittal. l�l . Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: All units will have access to a public street. The duplexes on the lower portion of Mill Street are accessed from a single cut off of Summit Street. The units on the upper portion of the site are accessed from private driveways off of the cul-de-sac. SUBDIVISION REVIEW: The specific review criteria for subdivision, as required by Section 26.88, are summarized below. A. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding , drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Response: The Geotech Report is attached as Exhibit D. Staff notes that the State Geologist has not reviewed the report, so compliance with this criteria cannot be determined. The ability to address previously identified geologic constraints is a threshold issue for the development of Lot 3. The Geotech Report reached the following conclusions regarding the Top of Mill site: 1. Soil and Foundation Conditions: Based on information presented in previous studies, no unusual soil or foundation conditions are present. However, was recommended that additional soil and foundation studies be conducted to evaluate site -specific subsurface and foundation conditions at each building site; 2. Underground Mine Workings: A possible tunnel may be located near the eastern side of the proposed building site on Lot 3. This should be evaluated further, and may require unspecified mitigation; 3. Storm Water Management: The report suggested that debris flow mitigation and storm water management should be evaluated together, due to the interrelationship between these types of constraints; 4. Debris Flows: The Top of Mill site is located in an area of potential flash flood and debris flow hazard areas. The recurrence frequency was placed in the range of 25 to greater than 100 years, and that large debris flows set off by intense precipitation or rapid snow melt are more likely than small debris flows. Probable mitigation would include flood proofing and direct structural reinforcement of the buildings, which could constrain the architectural design and site grading; 5. Landslides: The June 1984 slope movements triggered a monitoring effort funded by the Aspen Skiing Company, which concluded that slope movements were approximately one foot; and occurred at depths between 28 and 62 feet below the slope surface. The outcome included the identification of a series of mitigation measures that have not been implemented. 6. Rockfall: No slope instability problems are anticipated at the Top of Mill Site. Conclusion: The Geotech Report concludes that the report is based on a review of previous studies which are nearly 10 years old, addressed a different design concept, and did not cover parts of the currently proposed project. The report recommends site specific studies to address the Geotechnical and geologic aspects of the site based on the current development proposal. Staff does have concerns regarding several building envelopes and the existing topography on the site. By overlaying the proposed envelopes onto the slope analysis on the existing conditions map, the structures on Parcels 4,5 and 7 appear to be located in areas of significant slopes. Staff would suggest that the applicant consider shifting these envelopes to minimize grading and drainage impacts on these parcels. n B. Spatial Pattern. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Response: The project will not cause inefficiencies, and the majority of utilities were upgraded in connection with the development of the Ritz-Calrton Hotel. C. Improvements. The Code lists 16 required improvements for subdivision including items such as survey monuments, paved streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, fire hydrants, street signs, etc. Response: Water service to Parcel 1 will be provided via the existing twelve inch main in Mill Street. Parcels 2 through 8 will be served by a new eight inch waterline which will connect the existing twelve inch main from the City's aspen Mountain water tank to the existing main in Summit Street. Sewer service to Parcel 1 will be provided via the existing eight inch sewer in Mill Street. This sewer will be extended from Mill Street into Lot 3 to serve Parcels 2 through 8. Electric, telephone, natural gas and cable TV are all within the immediate vicinity of Lot 3. Savanah will install curb and gutter on both side of Mill Street adjacent to Parcel 1 on Lot 3 and along the sides of the proposed access road serving Parcels 2 through 8. A sidewalk will also be installed along the west side of Mill Street between Summit Street and the entrance to the access road. A fire hydrant will be installed in the proposed cul-de-sac, and all units will be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is hesitant to offer a recommendation to the Commission pending a review of the geotechnical considerations by the State Geologist. At the same time, staff would recommend that the applicant provide the Commission with additional visual impact information regarding the viewplane impacts from Aspen Mountain and Lift IA. Procedurally, staff would expect comments from the State Geologist by the mid -July, and would suggest that the Commission Table the application to July 23,1996 (Special Meeting). This would also allow the applicant to continue to resolve issues with the Parks and Engineering Departments. "A" - Referral Memos "B" - Alan Richman Memo "C" - Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines "D" - Geotech Report WA / - i •3 MEMORANDUM To: Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: June 26, 1996 (Last Revised) Re: Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD, Lots 3 & 5 Attendance: Nick Adeh Jack Reid Chuck Roth Phil Overeynder Ross Soderstrom Bill Earley John Sarpa Sunny Vann Ferd Belz. A.J. Zabbia Kevin O'Connell Tom Bracewell The following clarifications were made at this meeting which discussed the utility and engineering conunents made regarding the utility service needs and improvements of the applicant, Savannah, and the City of Aspen at and resulting from the proposed development of Lots 3 & 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. The discussion addressed the topics included in the memo written by the city utility and engineering departments in response to the preliminary application for this proposed development. Note Although the discussion addressed topics concerning both Lots 3 and 5, there does not appear to be any major issues related to the utilities, right-of-way construction and public infrastructure that would preclude development of Lot 5. Further dis- cussions will be required to evaluate the technical constraints and requirements for the possible development of Lot 3. Water Utility • 15 service connections to neighbors plus one hydrant to be moved from 6 inch line and 11 reconnected to existing 12 inch line through Galena and Summit Streets. Note: • Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots 3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision. DRCN•13E96.D0C 1 OF 8 MEMO - Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD, Lots 3 R 5 • The existing 6 inch line through Galena and Summit Streets to be abandoned after removing water services remaining on 6 inch line. Response: Phil Overeynder: Explained the need for moving the remaining services off the old 6 inch (or 8 inch) water line and connecting to the new 12 inch line. A.J. Zabbia: Explained that: 1) no new underground work is intended for Galena St. in this project; 2) the new 12 inch water line was installed as a transmission line rather than a distribution line per City direction at the time of installation; 3) the new line and other utilities were previously sized and constructed to meet this planned phase of the development in accordance with the PUD requirement of constructing the utilities prior to development of the individual sites; 4) there is no 6 inch water line in Summit St.; 5) the 6 inch line in Galena St is directly below the new curb and gutter, therefore if the developer were required to abandon this line, contribution would be sought from the City to help pay for the replacement of the curb and gutter; 6) he does not know of the 4 inch cross -connection in Galena St at Dean St although it was agreed that if it exists, it should be left in place. It is the opinion of the City Water Dept. that the development of Lot 1 necessitated the installation of the 12 inch line to provide service and fire protection and that abandonment of the existing 8 inch line is part of that work. Although it was not previously completed, the cumulative impact of the development of Lots 1, 21) 3, 4 and 5 make the abandonment of the 8 inch line necessary at this time. • City needs easements for water lines Response: John Sarpa: Applicant will dedicate easements where needed, as needed. • The Water Dept. has verified sufficient capacity in the distribution system to service this new development. Response: No comment, accepted. • Service to the proposed units above the 8040 line will require an auxiliary pump system to provide adequate flow and pressure for domestic use and fire suppression as stated in the application. Response: Sunny Vann &tiA.J. Zabbia: The developer intends to install individual pressure systems in each of the residences requiring additional water flow and pressure. I Note: • Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots 3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision. DRC,t 3E96.DOC 2 OF 8 MEMO - Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD, Lots 3 & 5 • The Water Dept. is concerned about the apparent conflict of interest created by Leonard Rice, Water Engineers, (Mr. A.J. Zabbia) working for the developer when this consultant has been retained by the City as its consulting engineer for the Water Dept. Response: Phil Overeynder & A.J. Zabbia: The City Attorney is considering the situation and the subject is being reviewed in a separate forum from the application process proper. Electric Power Utility • Sufficient illumination is needed on new streets and possibly on existing streets, particularly on upper Galena St. and Summit St. Response: Bill Earley: A separate circuit is needed for the new street lights, separate .of any interior or private landscape lighting for ease of serviceability. Some of the street lights around the Ritz - Carlton -are wired in a circuit with other appliances and interior to the building which makes it harder to troubleshoot and service. Sunny Vann: Street lighting will be provided along the new and re -developed portions of the street frontages using separate electrical circuits.. • Parts of this development are within the Holy Cross Electric Association service area so the electrical plans will also need to be reviewed by Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. Response: Sunny Vann: The applicant will review the specific electrical utility service requirements with Holy Cross Electric Association after other conceptual aspects of the project are resolved in the conceptual planning review. Streets Full -width Roto-milling of existing asphalt pavement and installation of a leveling course plus 2 inch asphalt overlay is required to support the traffic and the frequent cuts due to service trenches. Utility trenching: Straight asphalt line cutting; 12 inches beyond trench width to establish a straight neat line plus installation of 4 inch asphalt patch prior to street overlay is required. Maintain 1 /2 inch asphalt lip at concrete gutter pans. Note: • Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots 3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision. DRCM3E96.DOC 3 OF 8 MEMO - Meeting Minutes orApril 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD, Lots 3 & 5 Response: Jack Reid, Nick Adeh & Phil Overeynder: Explained the need for good quality asphalt patching at trench cuts and overlaying the street section to provide long term service life of the street section as practiced by the City of Aspen. Sunny Vann, A.J. Zabbia & John Sarpa: Emphasized the limited need for the developer to make new utility cuts but had no objection to providing the requested construction detail for trench backfilling and repair. They understand the discussion of full width roto-milling was limited to Mill St. and only in areas where a street cut was required due to utility. construction. • On -site drainage; Text of application (pg. 43) mentions storm water and snow melt draining from the project site to City streets which will not be permitted. Drywell inlets or other on - site drainage system will be allowed if soils permit. • Post development drainage leaving the site must equal pre -development flows and the projects must detain run-off by effectively routing the flows through open space for percolation and evaporation, and allow for pre -development level of discharge. Response: Nick Adeh, Jack Reid & Phil Overeynder: Explained the drainage problems in the general area and particularly down Mill Street due to both drainage from parcels fronting the street and the flows from Aspen Mt. at the south end of the street. The goal is to reduce, if not eliminate, surface storm and snowmelt drainage to the streets and to direct as much drainage to a storm water sewer system as possible. The limited existing system will need to be evaluated and a comprehensive plan developed which incorporates not only this proposed development, but also the entire drainage basin north to the Roaring Fork River. To that end, it will take at least eight (8) months for the City to conduct a study and develop a master drainage plan into which the developer may coordinate his project. The City is awaiting the promised geotechnical and environmental reports to be able to make further evaluations of the existing conditions and potential hazards and limiting conditions. Lot 5: Of particular concern is the conduction of storm drainage to the existing detention system on the west side of the Ritz Carlton, assuming it is sized to accommodate additional flows. Otherwise, where will on -site drainage systems be constructed to accommodate the flows? Lot 3: Of particular concern is: 1) detaining and routing of the snowmelt drainage from Aspen Mt. that presently runs down Mill Street; 2) Jack Reid requested a storm drain sewer. from Lot 3 down Mill Street and tied into the existing storm drain system; and that properly aligned, shaped gutters were constructed to contain and direct the street drainage flows within the surface gutters until reaching a storm drainage catchbasin; 3) design and cost sharing between the City and developer for the detention and conveyance syste;ns for storm drainage and snowmelt from 1 Note: • Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots 3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision. DRC.\13E96.DOC 4 OF 8 MEMO - Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD, Lots 3 & 5 Aspen Mt. and Lot 3 itself; quantifying the source and flow pattern of the drainage, i.e. Aspen Mt. drainage vs. Lot 3 drainage, and surface flows vs. subsurface flows; 4) previous and proposed impacts due to fill and grading work on the site and. the resulting quantities, qualities, directions and timings of the drainage flows. Ross Soderstrom: Requested that the developer provide copies of the drainage studies and information that the developer already has since the submittals provided in the earlier review process (when the Ritz -Carlton was developed) may not be available in the city files and to expedite the review/comment/design process. Response: A.J. Zabbia, Sunny Vann, John Sarpa, Kevin O'Connell, and Ferd Belz: Lot 5: The proposed building footprint will actually provide more permeable surface area than presently exists which will provide greater percolation area thus no detention will be required. As needed, a combination of storm sewers and will be installed to convey the surface flows to the existing system in Galena Street. LOU: The developer's position is that the $250,000 grant to the City satisfies its obligation for any engineering or construction of any off -site drainage improvements and for the construction of on -site detention. Also, the developer has not agreed that it is responsible for installing a new storm sewer in Mill St. Granting of easements for storm drainage conveyance around or through Lot 3 would be considered. Parks and Open Space At the request of Sunny Vann and John Sarpa, the topics related to parks, open space, and needed easements will be discussed with the City Parks Dept. in a separate meeting. Engineer* • Lot 3: Utility easements are required for all utilities (page 43) and at other locations for future improvements. Response: Sunny Vann & John Sarpa: Utility easement would be granted as needed. Flood control R-O-W for snow melt/storm drainage must be granted to the City around and through projects. Since the master plan of primary and secondary conveyance systems is Note: Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots 3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision. DRCNOE96.130C 5 OF 8 MEMO - Meeting Minutes ot'April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD, Lots 3 & 5 not in place, this development cannot proceed without dedication of R-O-W's/easements to the City. • Aspen Mountain area drainage master plan study is planned to begin in the near future. The recommendations for this drainage basin can significantly change as a result of the future master plan. • Site generated and off -site storm run-off needs to be addressed in the feasibility study phase of this project given the location at the base of the mountain in a natural drainage basin. This needs to be studied and reported on by an engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. No storm runoff from soils exposed by excavation and construction shall be permitted to enter City streets or alleys. Sediment transport or debris from the construction site onto City streets is prohibited and preventative measures that will meet our approval must be employed by the developer and shown on the construction plans. • The Mill Street storm sewer needs to be extended further south up Mill Street to receive .drainage before it leaves the development site and to prevent it from entering the City streets. The drainage design will need to satisfy the City design standards and procedures of Sections 26.88.040 and 26.88.050. Response: This entire discussion was incorporated with the above comments regarding storm drainage conveyance on the lots and the streets with a couple additional points: 1) the developer considers it the City's responsibility to contact SkiCo regarding the impacts of snowmaking and drainage that pass through Lot 3, in particular; 2) ground water flows are a concern of both the developer and the City on site and down gradient and should be considered in a joint effort of the developer, the City and SkiCo; 3) the developer should be included in development of the flood control master plan; 4) the developer does not want a retention structure on Lot 3; and 5) the flood control master plan and the drainage design for the two lots will continue concurrently with the entire planning and review process of the proposed development; 6) the developer will cooperate with the City in the granting of drainage easements though the site, however the terms sun-ounding the granting of any easements remains subject to negotiation. • The entire subdivision will need to meet the City design standards and procedures of Section 26.88.040 and 26.88.050 for subdivisions. Response: Sunny Vann, John Sarpa & A.J. Zabbia: The developer intends to comply with the subdivision design standards. The developer needs to quantify what impact SkiCo may have in run-off due to snow melt and erosion through the site and on to public streets. Note: • Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots 3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision. DRCN13E96.DOC 6 OF 8 MEMO - Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD, Lots 3 & 5 • The City needs the geotechnical and environmental reports from the applicant to make further evaluations, e.g. landslide hazard, site drainage, erosion control, sediment transport control, and slope stabilization. Response: This discussion was incorporated into previous discussions above. John Sarpa & A.J. Zabbia: The developer holds the position that it is the responsibility of the City to contact the Ski Co. and quantify its impacts on runoff. • Private Road: Indemnity clause from developer to the City for the publicly accessible but privately maintained loop into Lot 3 is required with submittals and on plans. • If the homeowner's assoc. were to be dissolved, this roadway may be re -constructed/ upgraded to City standards and dedicated to the public. Response: Sunny Vann: Did not see the reason for this requirement since the road is private and not open to public traffic. Nick Adeh: Did not remember the exact source of the requirement other than concern for public access on a proposed private street. • All the plan (application) sheets need to be submitted on 24" x 36" size sheets. Response: Chuck Roth: Pointed out that plans are to be submitted in this format per the subdivision requirements. Sunny Vann: This is only a conceptual submittal and it is easier to view the entire development on the submitted large format. The Final Plat and required documents will be submitted on 24" x 36" sheets. • The application does not include either a property survey nor a topographic map certified and stamped by a PLS; submitted "maps" are uncertified, unstamped drawings and sketches. Response: Sunny Vann: The maps were taken from the previous submittal and include the recorded maps. As a note of reference to the Wheeler Opera House view plane, a 5' 11" person standing on the sidewalk in front of the Wheeler Opera House can see all of the existing ski but higher thaltl approximately 30 inches above the deck or door sill elevation on the west side of the hut. The actual projection of the view plane will be reviewed further. Note: • Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots 3 & 5, Aspen.Mt Subdivision. DRCM3E96.DOC 7 OF 8 MEMO - Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD, Lots 3 & 5 Response: Sunny Vann: Reiterated that: 1) the view plane intersects Aspen Mt. below the proposed development site; 2) was intended to govern the height of construction in the foreground on Hyman and Durant Avenues rather than in the background; 3) and that the Ritz -Carlton already constructively impedes the view plane such as to mostly, if not, entirely hide the proposed new development. • Directional crossing (non -diagonal) handicap ramps shall be installed to provide access to and through the development areas. Curbs, gutters and storm runoff inlets will need to be located and constructed to retain water within the flow patterns and collection system, and to prevent the flooding of handicap ramps, driveways, sidewalks, streets or areas other than into the designated collection systems. Response: Sunny Vann: As above, general geometry and construction requirements and specifications will be met throughout the project. However, the developer may not be able to meet certain design standards, such as maximum slopes on handicap ramps, because of the extreme slopes existing on Mill St. Sanitary Sewer Utility For. completeness of review and comment, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, (ACSD), was requested to participate in the meeting to discuss this utility's requirements on the proposed development. Tom Bracewell essentially read the several requirements discussed in his letter to Dave Michaelson of February 29, 1996, emphasizing that: 1) fees are collected prior to commencing work;- 2) that the developer would be responsible for the proportionate share of the costs unless' the development necessitated major system expansion; 3) and that clear water connections to the sanitary sewer system are prohibited. Response: Sunny Vann, A.J. Zabbia & John Sarpa: Acknowledged understanding of the District's requirements and reiterated that the developer would be responsible for the proportionate share of the costs for downstream work necessitated by this project. The developer also agrees to perform a flow stud, as required by the Sanitation District. End of Memorandum Note: • Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots 3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision. DRCM3E96.DOC 8 OF 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Michaelson, Community Development THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department John Krueger, Trails Supervisor DATE: February 27, 1996 RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD (Lots 3&5) Conceptual Submission, Rezoning & Text Amendment We have reviewed the application for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD (Lots 3&5) Conceptual Submission, Rezoning & Text Amendment and have several concerns. Of primary concern to us is the neglect of the existing trail easements that were dedicated as part of the original subdivision approval process. On both Lots 3 & 5, the application shows buildings drawn on top of the trail easements. This is unacceptable because these easements are vital east/west trail linkages that must not be vacated to the development of these lots. They are important trail linkages for both summer and winter uses, including, hiking, mountain biking, nordic skiing, alpine skiing and pedestrian access. It is also important to keep these easements as functional trail easements and not negate them by either placing landscaping within the easements or by inappropriate grading around them to be unusable. It is therefore recommended that if this conceptual development is approved, a condition of approval should require the applicant to construct the Top of Mill Trail and the Alpine Trail between Mill St. and Galena St., in conjunction with their development of the lots. This should avoid the conflicting impacts to the trail easements. These trails are of considerable benefit to the entire neighborhood, including the residents of the new development, the surrounding condominiums and the general public because they provide east/west access in places where streets are lacking, allowing safe travel to either the Gondola area or Lift IA. The general landscaping proposed by the plan is somewhat premature to evaluate in much detail due to this being a conceptual submission. However, the proposed landscaping plan for Lot 5 shows a considerable number of trees planted in the utility and trail easement between Mill St. and Galena St.(southern edge of Lot 5). Trees must not be planted too close to the trail, approximately five (5) feet away from the trail edge. Additionally, trees should generally not be planted on top of utility easements due to the fact that if the utility needs to be dug up in the future, the trees will likely be damaged or destroyed. The utility company may not be responsible for the replacement of the trees but the property owner may be required to do so. This is not to say that utility easements need to be devoid of vegetation, just that they should not be over -landscaped with too many trees or other significant landscaping. The ,only other general comment on the application is in regards to the dedicated Open Space on Lot 3. The proposed plan shows a reduction of the open space for the development of Parcel #7. It appears from the topographic lines on the Master Site Plan for Lots 3& 5, that the original boundaries for open space parcel were defined by the existing topography: While the open space was dedicated as part of the original approvals, the area is zoned as Conservation with a PUD overlay. To reduce and rezone even a portion of dedicated open space sets a bad precedence for future development applications. The application vaguely implicates the so called cul-de-sac as open space. A cul-de-sac does not represent valuable open space and does not necessarily meet the zoning criteria for a conservation zone. The open space should be kept whole and contiguous and not diminished for development purposes. In response to the specifics of the application, we offer the following responses. Page 16 - The seventh amended plat shows all the important trail easements and the open space easement. These dedications should remain the same in development plans for Lots 3& 5. Page 19 - The eight (8) foot trail easement was required per the Amended PUD agreement and must still be constructed. Staff did not hold up the Certificate of Occupancy on Lot 1, however, this does not mean that the trail does not still need to be constructed. The trail must be constructed with the development of Lot 5 and trail design must be approved by the Parks Department prior to final PUD approval. Currently, the conceptual application shows a building constructed on top of the easement. The buildings must be at least 10 feet from the trail edge. Page 20 - Tree removal permits will be required for all trees removed that meet code. However, a more detailed landscape plan will be required for final submission and must indicate all trees proposed for removal and mitigation proposed for removed trees. Page 22 - The application states that the Top of Mill Trail does not become effective until public easements are obtained through adjacent lands. However, the trail easement dedicated by Roberts should be amended as part of the development approval to require the applicant to construct the trail in conjunction with their development of Lot 3. A trail in this area would benefit both the applicant and the surrounding neighbors to access the gondola area and Lift 1A. The Aspen Ski Company is the adjoining property owner on both sides (east and west). The trail easement should also be amended to extend on the east side through the finger extension that to be workable with the existing topography. Page 29 - The trail easement does not appear on'the Site Development Plan for Lot 5 and shows the townhomes encroaching upon the easement. Page 44 - The trail easement does not appear on the Site Development Plan for Lot 3. There are townhomes, driveways and parking areas shown on top of the easement. Additionally, access to the triplexes on Parcel # 1 is shown off of Summit St. The entry to the triplexes cuts across the western corner of the open space easement at Summit St. which again reduces the dedicated open space. The increased traffic on Summit St. also creates problems for the ski trail that crosses Summit St. by creating more potential for skier/vehicle conflicts. Since Summit St. is fairly narrow, it may make sense to have the access for the triplexes off of Mill St. Page 45 - In regards to the Top of Mill Trail being vacated by Savannah, that is totally unacceptable. If the property can be developed for townhomes it makes sense to have the applicant construct the trail in conjunction with their construction. The trail has not been relocated as indicated. The trail shown on the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan is not a legal map and refers to the generalized area. The trail easement had already been dedicated when these plans were done and the Base of Aspen Mountain Trail is still an important link in the overall trails plans and must not be vacated. Exhibit B MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director FROM: Alan Richman Planning Services W SUBJECT: Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Conceptual PUD DATE: February 28, 1996 Purpose Pursuant to your direction, I have reviewed the 1996 Conceptual PUD submission for the Grand Aspen Hotel and Top of Mill properties. I have also examined the City's files on the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, in particular, the 1984/1985 Conceptual and Preliminary PUD files and the applicant's original submission booklets for what were then identified as "the residential projects". The purposes of my review are to assist you in understanding the history of the Aspen Mountain PUD project as it pertains to the current submission and to help you to determine whether the applicant has correctly described that history for you in the application. In general, I find that the applicant's review of the history of the PUD, which begins on page 2 of the submission, is accurate. In particular, the applicant's review of the "approval parameters" in Table 1 (page 5) and Table 2 (page 9-10) appears to be correct. However, in reviewing the project history for the Top of Mill portion of the property, the applicant has either not mentioned some pertinent events or has not emphasized certain issues which I think may be important. I will provide you a description of these issues below. It is also important that you are aware that my work with the PUD essentially ended when I stopped working for the City in 1989. Although I subsequently performed limited contract work for the City on the PUD in 1990 and again in 1992, those were very specific assignments which did not provide me an overall perspective of how the project approvals were changing. In particular, I have not been involved in what are known as the "Section M Amendments". I would suggest that you talk with Amy Margerum and Diane Moore if you have any questions about the history of those amendments. Project Review Following below are my comments on the application. To simplify your review, my comments are organized to follow the order of the presentation in the application booklet. 1. Page 3 of the application booklet states that "The approval process for the Top of Mill project was suspended following conceptual approval pending further evaluation of the site". It is correct that conceptual approval was the last formal approval granted to the Top of Mill project. I previously provided you a copy of City Council Resolution 84-23, which granted that conceptual approval, subject to conditions. Subsequent to that approval (and just after the lodge projects received preliminary approval on January 22, 1985), the applicant filed an application for preliminary approval of the residential projects on January 28, 1985. I submitted two memos to the P&Z reviewing that submission, dated March 5 and March 19, 1985 (copies attached). Our review of the project had to proceed in phases because we did not receive some key referral comments in a timely manner. These late -arriving referral comments addressed what we identified as the "natural hazards review". Based on comments received from the Colorado Geologic Service, staff recommended that action on the Top of Mill project be tabled until further analysis and study of the potential for landslide, debris movement and mud flood to affectthis property was completed. The P& Z concurred and review of the project ended at that time and did not commence again during my tenure with the City. I also attach P&Z Resolution 85-61 dated April 2, 1985, which delayed the approval of the Top of Mill preliminary PUD submission until 12 specified conditions were met. I have also provided you with copies of the relevant staff and referral agency comments on the preliminary submission and can show you where the original files are located in City Hall. 2. On page 9 of the application it states that the principal change to the Roberts approval in 1988 was to change the number of lodge units. While this was certainly one outcome of that review process, it was not the only reason the applicant made the amended submission. Its primary purpose was to achieve a re -design of the hotel, including changes in architecture, site layout, internal configuration, etc. The focus of the 1988 debate was on the height, massing and floor area of the hotel and on impacts such as employee housing. 3. On page 10, Table 2 correctly notes that 8 of the units planned for Lot 5 arose t;from a prior GMQS allocation._ I recall us completing a,, GMQS amendment procedure for the residential units in!1988, just prior to final approval of that amendment. You may need to complete another GMQS amendment, as a technical matter, prior to final approval of this proposed amendment. 4. On page 13, end of the second paragraph, the applicant makes the statement that six covered parking spaces for Summit Place are to be provided on Lot 3 on or before January 1, 1997. I have been unable to find the source for this condition. You should ask the applicant to provide the applicable reference for you, as the Amended PUD Agreement (page 31) provides that parking for that project would be on site (sub -grade). 5. The statement on page 17 that there are 150 hotel units and 7 deed restricted housing units in the Grand Aspen Hotel means the PUD complies with prior conditions as to: (a) the maximum number of lodge units which can be in operation within the PUD (447 units, as per representation 2 on page 42 of 1988 PUD Agreement); and (b) the required housing for the Ritz Carlton and Ice Rink projects. As the application states, the 7 employee units must be relocated as part of any approval for Lot 5. Please also note that the PUD Agreement (page 39) also makes the applicant responsible for providing "off -site employee housing for net new employees and other employee housing requirements as may be determined during the amended approval process for the Lot 5 component of the project". 6. The description of the Ski Club condition on page 22 is accurate. The original reference for this condition is found in representation 9 on page 44 of 1988 PUD Agreement. For your information, although the City was not responsible for choosing the new building site, we completed considerable work on possible sites. In fact, there is a study of alternative sites for a new building contained within the 1985 preliminary PUD file for the residential projects. The study was done by Larry Yaw for the Ski Club and focuses on sites in and around Willoughby Park and Lift 1A. During this time period, staff worked as a "catalyst" for a plan to build a ski museum and Ski Club building in this area. I can describe this for you in greater detail if you think it is relevant. 7. On page 25, the application mentions the payment of $250,000 to the City toward preparation and implementation of an Aspen Mountain drainage plan. The original reference for this condition and the intended uses for the funds are found in representation 10 on pages 44-45 of the 1988 PUD Agreement. The applicant accurately states on page 25 that this contribution relieved the applicant of a prior commitment to provide on -site detention facilities within the open space easement contained within the Top of Mill property. However, on page 6.5 of the application, the applicant makes another reference to what this payment meant, that I do not believe is correct. On page 65 the applicant states that based on the amended PUD, "storm water generated as a result. of the development of Lot 3 is to be mitigated by the City". 01 It was my understanding that the on -site detention facilities were principally intended to detain water and debris that originate off -site and run onto this site during a storm event. When it was determined to be premature to decide on the best form that this hazard control would take, the City agreed to allow the applicant to contribute towards its study and ultimate resolution, rather than to build facilities that might not prove to be adequate. I do not recall that the City accepted this money with the understanding that the City would become responsible for mitigating the additional drainage impacts the development would place on the City. 8. An aspect of the project history not mentioned in the application is that the City gave the applicant approximately 11,000 sq. ft. of land (8 lots) it owned within the Top of Mill site in exchange for a portion of the Koch Lumber property (Koch Park) . The rest of the Koch property was given to the City in exchange for a series of street vacations within the PUD. The 8 lots had been zoned Public and were rezoned to L-2 (now L/TR) by Ordinance 85-11 on 5/13/85. 9. On page 54 (and again on page 76) the applicant proposes rezoning the land within the Top of Mill property zoned R-15 to L/TR. For your information, the prior PUD application also contained such a request. The staff did not support this request and the attached Resolution 84-5 of the Aspen P&Z recommended denial of this request for three reasons: a. The proposed development could be achieved without the rezoning. b. The rezoning would create a more favorable FAR for the property, which could instead be achieved by a PUD variation for FAR (a variation which has since been removed from the Regulations). C. The L-2 zone district would allow multi -family development to occur, which was not consistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designation for the area. Before the rezoning could be considered by Council, it was withdrawn by the applicant (see 4/6/84 letter from Joe Wells) . 10. On page 58, the application states that 60,260 sq. ft. of the Top of Mill parcel (about 25%) will be open space. In reviewing the 1985 preliminary PUD booklet, I note that on page 50, it states that about 170,009 sq. ft. (70%) will be open space. I have not spent any time analyzing the site plan to see why the open space has chariged by so much. However, I would remind you that the definition of open space was changed in 1988 and it is possible that some areas which qualified as open space in 1985 do not still qualify today. 4 11. Some other aspects of the Top of Mill design which appear to differ from the representations made in 1984/85 include: a. The prior design did not bring vehicles into the site. Instead, they were directed to a sub -grade parking structure. There was only a single street within the project site, oriented to continue the City's grid street network. . The application booklet repeatedly made the. point that "powerful axial views up Mill Street will be maintained and reinforced". The City ultimately vacated the top portion of Mill Street to facilitate this design (see City Ordinance 85-14, adopted on 5/13/85 and as referenced on the final plat) . b. The 33 units within the Top of Mill project were all planned to have 3,_000 sq. ft. of floor area, contained within a 1,000 sq. ft. footprint. 12. The analysis of mountain view plane issues (page 84) is consistent with the staff approach to that issue in 1984/85. For your information, during the prior review we discussed mountain view plane and 8040 greenline issues at the conceptual stage, but only gave final approval to the issues when full architectural and grading plans were submitted at preliminary plat. I would also point out to you that in 1988 the mountain view plane provisions were amended to take into account the potential that the review of a development in a view plane that is blocked by another structure should take into account whether future re -development of that structure may re -open the view plane. I do not know if that amendment is relevant to this situation, but wanted you to be aware of that change since the original review. 13. Finally, I would remind you that the PUD agreement established park dedication fees for the residential units to be built at that time. Such fees would appear to also be applicable to these dwelling units. I hope this memorandum provides you the information you require to understand the complete history of these projects. Please let me know if it would be helpful to you for me to go into greater depth on any of the issues discussed herein or to provide you any additional analysis. 5 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND 8 ONI NG CONK SSI ON GRANTING APPROVAL TO A PORTION OF THE PRELI MI NARY PUD/SUBDIVISION AND RECOMMENDING ASSOCIATED APPROVALS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS INCLUDED WITHIN THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD Resolution No. 85-6 WHEREAS, by their Resolution No. 84-23; the Aspen City Council (hereinafter, "Council") did grant Conceptual PUD/Subdivision approval to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena Condominium components of, the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS, by their Resolution No. 84-27, Council did endorse the revised employee housing proposal of the Aspen Mountain PUD and did grant conceptual subdivision approval and exemption from the City's growth management allotment procedures for the proj ect' s Ute City Place component; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 1984, Council did agree that the lodge and residential components of the project could continue to be reviewed separately, provided that the approval of any preliminary stage not become effective until the preliminary approval for the entire PUD has been granted; and WHEREAS, by their Resolution 85-1, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter, "Commission") did grant preliminary PUD/sub- division approval for the lodge component of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS, John H. Roberts, Jr., Alan R. Novak and Robert Calloway (hereinafter' "Applicants") have submitted an application for Preliminary PUD/Subdivision approval for the residential component of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS, the Commission did hold a public hearing on the Applicants submission on March 5, 1985, which hearing was continued to March 12, March 19 and April 2, 1985, to consider the Preliminary PUD/Subdivision application and associated review procedures for the residential component of the Aspen Mountain PUD. NOW,r THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby recommend that approval of the Preliminary PUD/Subdivision and 8040 Viewplane applications concerning the Top of Mill component of the PUD be delayed until such time as the following conditions have been met: 1. The Applicants shall continue their evaluation of the geologic hazards from Aspen Mountain which may affect this site by monitoring and reporting on the data gathered during the critical melt/runoff time period. Based on this infor- mation the Applicants shall provide responses to the concerns expressed by Jeffrey C. Hynes, Senior Engineering Geologist of the Colorado Geologic Survey, in his letter dated March 8, 1985. The Applicants shall submit their programt, for on- going monitoring to Mr. Hynes for his review and approval prior to the critical period. 1 2. The Applicants shall expand the scope of their soil contam- ination sampling program to determine whether any. toxic materials are located within the area proposed to be used for storm water detention on the site. If such materials are found in this area, the Applicants shall develop a plan to insure that toxic substances do not leak into the ground- Resolution No. Page 2 water below the site, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineer and Chief Environmental Health Officer. 3. The Applicants shall develop a soil monitoring program and detailed grading plans for the entire Top of Mill site to satisfy the concerns of the Environmental Health Officer that no toxic material be moved off the site or be excessively disturbed and that the toxic soils on the site will be properly covered and controlled. 4. The Applicants shall insure that all exposed mine dumps and tailings on or around the perimeter of the PUD site are isolated from human exposure to inhalation or ingestion by the placement of f ill material over toxic soils and by diverting all surface water from such soils. 5. The Applicants shall demonstrate that they have taken into account and worked cooperatively with the Aspen Skiing Company on their plans to change the finish area for the World Cup and to address plans to mitigate site drainage impacts from Aspen Mountain. 6. The Applicants shall commit to having the booster pump system proposed for the Top of Mill project reviewed by the City Engineer and Director of the Water Dept. prior to its installation to determine its reliability and adequacy of fire flows. 7. The landscaping plan for the Top of Mill site shall be revised to move trees and shrubs further from the curb than the two foot distance presently shown to avoid conflicts with cars and snow removal. The landscaping plan shall be supported with anirrigation plan. 8. A construction phasing program for the Top of Mill site shall be submitted which meets the requirements of Section 24-8.9 (b) of the Municipal Code. 9. The Applicants shall commit to providing the Building Inspector prior to building permit review with field data demonstrating that units cn the Top of Mill site are not likely to be subject to subsidence from underground mines. 10. Adequate air handling facilities, satisfying the Environmental Health Officer, shall be designed into the underground parking structures to eliminate any buildup of air contam- inants. 11. The Applicants shall place a note on the plat for the Top of Mill project advising potential buyers of the hazards affecting the property if the continuing studies demonstrate the existence of such problems. 12. The Applicants shall submit documentation of their compliance with the above conditions to the Planning Office which shall present the submission to the Commission at a duly noticed public hearing following its review by the appropriate referral agencies. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby grant to the residential projects within the Aspen Mountain PUD (other than the Top of Mill) Preliminary PUD/Subdivision approval, does recommend subdivision exception for the purposes of condominium- ization and does confirm the compliance of the Ute City Place project Resolution No. 85- Page 3 with the provisions of the Residential Bonus Overlay which was previously applied to the site, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicants shall designate 30 of the already proposed parking spaces on the PUD site to long-term storage of cars of specific employees housed at the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse and shall continue to search for added parking at sites near these two housing projects. 2. As per Section 24-10.5 (F), the P&Z waives compliance of the Ute City Place project with the 35 percent open space requirement in the RMF zone district. The Applicants shall provide that at least 23% of the site remains as open space. 3. The Applicants shall rectify, prior to the occupancy of the west wing lodge units, the lifer. health and safety code deficiencies in the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus identified by John Ostwald and Tom Voorhies of the Building Department in their memos dated March 20 and March 21, 1985. 4. The .Applicants shall comply with the landscaping comments provided by Jim Holland in his memo dated February 26, 1985. S. The Applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that the employee housing units be restricted in terms of use and occupancy to the rental or sale guidelines established and indexed at the time or prior to issuance of the building permit by the City Council's designee for moderate income employee housing units. Verification of employment and income of those persons living in the moderate income employee units shall be completed and filed with the City Council or its designee by the owner commencing on the date of recording hereof, in the Pitkin County Real Property records and annually thereafter. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City or its designee by any appropriate legal action including injunction, abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy, during the period of life of the last surviving member of the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be greater. 6. Condominium maps for each project shall be submitted to the City Engineer following substantial completion of their construction for review and .recommendation prior to the sale of any unit. 7. The plat shall be revised to indicate the curb designs which have been recommended by the City Engineer. 8. The final plat shall identify all slopes in excess of 30%. 9. The Engineering Department shall be copied on the Applicants CDOH driveway permit for the Ute City Place project. 10. The Ute City Place final plat submission shall comply with the standard size requirement for such documents. 11. All drainage needs for the Ute City Place project shall be handled on site. An irrigation system shall be installed to serve the landscaping on this site. 12. The Applicants will initiate any or all customary air pollution control measures recommended by the Environmental Health Officer to minimize wind blown fugitive dust leaving the Resolution No. 85- CP Page 4 site during the demolition and construction stages of the project. Contact shall be made by the applicant with the Air Pollution Control Division District Engineer of the Colorado Health Department to determine if an emission permit and/or fugitive dust control plan is required at these stages. 13. The six mcnth minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22 (b) is recommended to be waived for the residential projects within the PUD. 14. The details of the cn-site drainage plan for the PUD site shall be made available for review by the City Engineer during the final plat review process. 15. All written and verbal representations of the Applicants with respect to the residential projects within the PUD are hereby made conditions of this action. BE IT ALSO RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby recommend that Council delete the trail easement along the Top of Mill site and pursue alternative alignments due to the topographic impracticality of connecting this segment to other trails across the mountain and based on the Commission's finding that the adopted Trails Plan contains no segments to which this easement could be linked. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that. it does hereby recommend that Council proceed with the processing of the final plat for the remainder of the PUD, in spite of the delay associated with the Top of Mill project. The Commission refers the Council to its Resolution 85-7 to identify its reasoning on this recommendation. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 2, 1985. ASPEN PLANNING AND 8 ONI NG COMMISSION By Perry H vey, Chair ATTEST: Rim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit C The Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood once was the focus of rnining activity in the ciry and it saw a variety of building types and forms. Today, it continues to exhibit diverity in its architectural character and scale of buildings. Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Chapter 6 The Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood The Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood is boundedby Aspen Mountain on the south and Durant Avenue on the north. Its western boundary is Garmisch Street and its eastern boundary is High- way 82. Historic character of the Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood Aspen Mountain was a focus of mining activity in the early years of the city. Early photographs show awild mix of buildings, including tipples, trestles, mills and other mine -related structures, rail yards, depots and towers, and huddling at the base, a dense collection of small miner's cottages. Overall, the area exhibited an industrial character, and the architecture was more rustic than that found in other Aspen neighborhoods. The buildings had a variety of forms and materials, which reflected the diversity of uses in the area. The scale of buildings was quite varied, ranging from small one-story dwellings to imposing mill build- ings. The tallest buildings in town were found here, and the Clarendon Hotel, which occupied almosthalf a block where the Wagner Park Ball Field is today, was among the largest buildings in town. Building materials were varied and exhibited a range of finish, from painted clapboard to rough -sawn, unpainted timber. The mining structures were built from basic materials. Large timbers were hewn from logs, and untrimmed board planks were used for siding and roofing. Metal was also seen in braces and connectors. Although houses were painted, little else was. Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines Page 39 Current character of the Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood Although the signs of mining activity have long since been removed, the Base of Aspen Mountain contin- ues to exhibit diversity in architectural character and building scale. Buildings have more of a vertical emphasis than any place else in town and some of the tallest structures are still found here. In comparison with other neighborhoods, this area is densely developed. A mix of building sizes, forms and types is seen including condominiums, hotels and commercial structures. Most present a street level that is of human scale and that is inviting to pedestrians. Some multi -family residential buildings, however, have been constructed with multiple en- trances and 'an overall horizontal emphasis that is in contrast to the traditional vertical character of the area. Building materials continue to be varied, even more so than historically. Stucco, brick and wood are com- -non. A range of metals, tiles and stone are also seen. Streets are clearly defined in the neighborhood, often with a curb, gutter and sidewalks. Views to the mountain are an important feature of this neighbor- hood, and should be preserved when feasible. Major public trails run near the base of Aspen Moun- tain and opportunities for connecting to these .exist on many new development sites. In order to maxi- mize the potential benefits of these trails, it is impor- tant that the streets connecting them invite pedes- trian activity. Development trends in the Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood Recently, some structures have appeared that deny the street, and instead turn inward, 'providing little visual interest for pedestrians. Some entries are de- tached from their buildings, and entrances are not scaled to the pedestrian. Page 40 The introduction of structured parking at the lower levels of buildings is altering the street level experi- ence, because extensive expanses of wall surface in these cases are blank, or garage openings. These plain surfaces have weakened the pedestrian appeal of the street. In some cases, important views also have been blocked due to insensitive placement of some struc- tures on their sites. As a partof new development, more commercial uses are being introduced into the Base of Aspen Moun- tain neighborhood. These uses can add appeal to the street, if the facades are designed to be in scale and to provide interest to pedestrians. An important factor in the character of the neighbor- hood is building use. Many structures are second homes, or are accommodations facilities thatsee cycles of intense activity followed by quiet periods. There- fore, creating street walls that encourage pedestrian activity during all cycles is important to maintaining liveliness in the area. Goals for the Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood A special concern is that the street level of buildings be designed in a manner to encourage pedestrian activity. Because many buildings in this neighbor- hood are only occupied for shorts periods of the year, and streets may appear lonely, it is vitally important that buildings reinforce a streetscape that is of human scale. Therefore, the City holds these design goals for the Base of Aspen Mountain neighborhood. 1. To enhance the pedestrian experience at the street level 2. To protect views of the mountain 3. To promote a sense of visual integration in the neighborhood while also encouraging a diversity of building types. Divide larger projects into modules that are similar to those of buildings seen traditionally. Buildings should have sloping roof forms. Gable, hip, and shed roof shapes are appropriate. Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines Base of Aspen Mountain Design Guidelines for the Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all projects in the Base of Aspen Mountain Neighbor- hood, in addition to the chapter of General Guide- lines for All Neighborhoods. When considering the appropriateness of a project with respect to these guidelines, also consider how the project will help to accomplish the design goals for the neighborhood. Mass & Scale 53. Set taller buildings against the mountains to reduce their perceived scale. a. Although tallerbuildings can be accommodated in this area, it is still preferred that their appar- ent mass be minimized. Incorporate some den- sity into sloping roof forms to reduce the per- ceived scale of the building. b. Locate the building mass so as to avoid creating icing conditions on public walkways. C. A vertical orientation is preferred. d. Divide larger projects into modules that are similar to those of buildings seen traditionally. e. Step buildings down in scale as they approach adjacent, smaller structures. Buildin F orm Guidelines 54. A variety of building forms is appropriate in this area. a. However, rectilinear forms are encouraged. b. Buildings should have sloping roof forms. Gable, hip, and shed roof forms are appropriate. Page 41 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road Exhibit 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 -r b GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 0, REVIEW FOR THE GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ASPEN, COLORADO JOB NO. 195 489 JANUARY 12, 1996 PREPARED FOR: SAVANAH LLMITED PARTNERSHIP ATTENTION: MR. FERD BELZ c/o ASPEN ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, ITS GENERAL PARTNER OMAR BENJAMIli, PRESIDENT k515 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REVIEW ...................................... I PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................... I PREVIOUS STUDIES REVIEWED ....................................... I SITE AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .................................... 2 GEOTECIE",UCAL AND GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS .................... 3 SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS .......................... 3 UNDERGROUND NENE WORKINGS .............................. 4 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ................................. 5 DEBRISFLOWS ............................................... 6 LANDSLIDES................................................. 7 ROCKFALL................................................... 10 CONSTRUCTION -RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY .................. 11 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS .............................. 11 LMTATIONS ...................................................... 11 REFERENCES ...................................................... 12 FIGURE I - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REVIEW This report presents the findings of a geotechnical engineering review of the proposed Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Redevelopment Project in Aspen. The project area is shown on Fig. 1. The review was made to identify geotechnical and geologic conditions which could have a major influence on the proposed redevelopment. The work was conducted according to our July 28, 1995 proposal to the Savanah Limited Partnership. The study consisted of a site reconnaissance and review of previous geologic and geotechnical reports. Based on this, and our experience in the area, geotechnical and geologic conditions important to project planning and development have been identified and the need for additional studies evaluated. This report has been prepared to summarize the data reviewed and to present our conclusions and recommendations. . PROPOSED DEVELOPNJ ENT The Grand Aspen/Top of Mill. Redevelopment Project includes Lot 3 and Lot 5 in the Aspen Mountain P.U.D., see Fig. 1. The Grand Aspen part of the project is Lot 5 which covers about 2.6 acres between Galena and South NO Streets. Redevelopment here will be 30 townhome and condominium dwelling units in three buildings. Access to the development will be from the existing city streets. The Top of Mill part of the project is Lot. 3 which covers about 5.5 acres at the south end of Mill Street. Redevelopment here will be 17 mixed residential dwelling units. The units will consist of single family homes, duplex homes, and triplex homes. Lot 3 will be subdivided into eight building parcels and common -open space. The dwelling units will be in ten separate buildings. Access to the development will be a private drive extending to the south of South Mill Street. PREVIOUS STUDIES REVIEWED Reports made available for our review are included in the references. The reports largely consist of geologic, geotechnical engineering, and storm water hydrology reports prepared by consultants for the Top of Mill part of the Aspen Mountain P.U.D. between 1983 and 1985. Also included were review reports from the Colorado Geological Survey H-P Geotech -2- and two Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission resolutions. The large maps accompanying a few reports were not available in the copies provided. Reports in which the large maps were not provided were: Chen and Associates, 1984c; Rea Cassens and Associates, 1985a; and KKBNA, 1986. Environmental issues associated with mine dump materials at the Top of Mill site were also evaluated in the mid 1980's. It is our understanding that the environmental issues are presently being reviewed by Waste Engineering, Inc. for the proposed redevelopment project. At the time of the previous studies in the mid 1980's, the development concept for Top of 1V1ill was a 33 dwelling unit condominium complex consisting of one large building with underground parking and eight smaller outlying buildings and an additional parking structure. The currently proposed development differs substantially from that previously considered for the Top of Mill site. SITE AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The project area is located primarily on the Pioneer Gulch alluvial fan at the base of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area. The fan head is about 400 feet upslope to the south of the southern boundary of the Top of Mill site and about 1,400 feet upslope of the Grand Aspen Site. The fan is the product of flash flood and debris flow deposition during the past 30,000 years. The fan surface at both sites has been modified by grading associated with the ski area, past mining operations and development in the city. Near the fan head slopes are steep, in the range of 40.to 50%. Most of the steep slopes he to the south of the Top of Mill site, but some steep slopes border the alluvial fan at the site. At the Top of Mill site the original fan surface has an average slope of about 20%. Grading in this area has modified the terrain. In several places gently sloping cut and fill benches are present. On the lower part of the fan ground slopes are about 5% in the vicinity of the Grand Aspen site. Glacial till and colluvium underlie the slopes of Aspen Mountain adjacent to the fan to the south of the Top of Mill site. The steep slopes in the eastern part of the site are part of an old earthflow complex in the Little Nell area. The drainage basin tributary to the Pioneer Gulch above the fan covers about 124 H-P Geotech -3- acres (Chen and Associates, 1985b). The basin does not support a perennial stream. Some surface flow occurs in the spring during the snowpack melt, but well-defined stream channels are not apparent in the basin or on the fan. In places, the Aspen Skiing Company diverts snow melt and storm water runoff out of the basin. The diversions are in road ditches of limited capacity. Other parts of the mountain which are sources of surface water runoff are the steep mountain slope between Pioneer Gulch and Vallejo Gulch and there is also potential that some surface runoff from Vallejo and Spar Gulches, under some conditions, may also be tributary to the Top of Mill site and the Pioneer Gulch fan (Chen and Associates, 1985b). Like Pioneer Gulch, these other basins are ephemeral. Most of the fan surface in the project area is developed with hotels, condominiums and some single family residences. The ski area borders the Top of Mill site on the south and west. The existing buildings which presently occupy the -Grand Aspen site will be demolished. The Top of Mill site is presently vacant, except for some residences in the northern part. Vegetation on the Top of Mill site in areas not disturbed by grading consist of a mixed aspen and conifer forest. Most of the ski runs have been revegetated with grass. Areas which appear to be regraded mine dump and other fills are common at the Top of Mill. GEOTECHNICAL AVD GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS This review shows that there are several condition of a geologic and geotechnical nature which could have an impact on the redevelopment project. The potential impacts are more severe for the Top of NO site than they are for the Grand Aspen site. A summary of conditions which should be considered in project planning and our conclusions and recommendation are presented in the following sections. SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS Summary of Review: A geotechnical engineering study of soil and foundation conditions was previously made for the Top of Mill site (Chen and Associates, 1984b), but soil and foundation conditions have not been specifically studied at the Grand Aspen site. The previous geotechnical study at the Top of Mill site included eight auger borings, laboratory 3, H-P Geotech t In testing, analysis and recommendations. The general findings of the study were: • Soils at the site consist of fill and clayey sands and gravel with cobble -sized rock fragments. • Ground water was not encountered to the depths explored of about 25 to 40 feet in April and May of 1984. • Fills on the site are not suitable for foundation support and should be removed. • Fills up to about 10 feet thick were encountered at the boring sites. • The structures may be founded on spread footings designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. • Grading plans should be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. • Mine dump materials which may contain lead may be present on the site. Conclusions and Recommendations: Based on information presented in the previous geotechnical report for the Top of Mill and our experience in the general area, we do not anticipate unusual soil and foundation conditions at either the Top of Mill site or at the Grand Aspen site., It is recommended that additional soil and foundation studies be done at the Top of Mill to evaluate site -specific subsurface and foundation conditions at the proposed building sites. A soil and foundation study should also be made at the Grand Aspen site. UNDERGROUND MINE WORKINGS Summary of Review: A mine subsidence hazard evaluation was previously made for the Aspen Mountain Lodge Project (Chen and Associates, 1984a). The study area included the Top of Mill and Aspen Grand sites. The general findings of the study were: • Record of underground mine workings were not found below the Aspen Mountain Lodge Project area. • The zone of major potential mine subsidence lies at least 200 feet to the east of the project area. This should be a satisfactory safety zone. H-P Geotech 1 -5- • Unmapped mine workings could be present in the project area, but the likelihood is very small. We have reviewed mine maps of the area which are in our files. It appears that the findings of the previous study are usually reasonable. An exception is a possible tunnel not previously described. The mine map shows that the tunnel has a bearing of about S22 °E. The tunnel portal may be located near the eastern side of the proposed building site on Parcel #3 at the Top of Mill. Conclusions and Recommendations: Based on information presented in the previous mine subsidence evaluation for the Aspen Mountain Lodge Project and review of mine maps in our files, the Grand Aspen site should not be in a mine subsidence hazard area. The Top of Mill site does not appear to be exposed to a serious mine subsidence hazard, but the possibility of a tunnel portal near Parcel 9 3 should be further evaluated. If a tunnel portal is present, then mitigation may be needed. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Storm water management is not strictly a geotechnical issue, but there could be an interrelationship between debris flows and storm water management in the project area. Because of this, we have reviewed the previous storm water drainage report prepared for several components of the Aspen Mountain P.U.D., which includes the Top of Mill site (Aspen Mountain P.U.-D. Project, 1985a and 1985b; and Rea Cassens and Associates, 1985). The Grand Aspen site is in the general area of the previous studies, but these studies do not specifically address the Grand Aspen site. Summary of Review: In 1985 it was proposed to detain the 100-year Developed runoff on -site and release it at the 5-year Historic rate, which was the estimated capacity of the existing down stream storm sewer system. It was proposed to have the City or Lodge Improvement District construct three detention basins on Aspen Mountain and *.he owner P � would construct a 1.94 acre-foot retention basin at the Top of NO site to manage off -site storm water from Aspen Mountain. The Top of Mill basin would detain that portion of the Historic storm water considered to be 'tributary to the PUD from Aspen Mountain. To H-P Geotcch I Me account for increased sediment loads associated with potential debris flows the calculated 100-year storm water volumes were increased by 50%. It was pointed out that storm water management of runoff tributary to the project and other existing development in the area from Aspen Mountain should be carefully considered because uncontrolled runoff from the various drainage basins on Aspen Mountain could create considerable problems to the City in the future. Recommendations: Because of the potential interrelationship between debris flow mitigation and storm water management for the two redevelopment sites, it is recommended that debris flow hazard mitigation be evaluated in conjunction with development of the storm water management plan. This will require coordination between the geotechnical engineer, planner, architect, design engineer and the surface water hydrologist. DEBRIS FLOWS Summary of Review: Two debris flow hazards evaluations were previously made for the Top of Mill site (Chen and Associates, 1984c and 1985b). The 1985 study was done to provide additional information on the debris flow hazard as recommended by the Colorado Geological Survey (1985a). In 1986, preliminary design concepts for debris flow hazard mitigation at the Top of Mill were starting to be developed just before the termination of the original project (KYBNA, 1986). The Pioneer Gulch fan is the product of flash flood and debris flow deposition during the past 3 0, 000 years.. Regional geologic studies show that the fan was deposited on top of, and is therefore younger than, Outwash Terrace B which correlates with the early part of the Pindale glacial period (Bryant 1971 and 1979). The early Pindale glacial period is considered to be between 30,000 and 60,000 years before the present (Porter and Others) 1983). Stratigraphic observations in a test pit on the fan identified deposits associated with at least 'three flash .flood or debris flows in the upper 4 feet of the fan at the Top of Mill. Historic flash floods and associated debris flows occurred on the Pioneer Gulch fan in September 1919 and in August 1964. The rainfall intensity for the 1.964 storm was given as 1.13 inch per hour (Chen and Associates, 1984c). This would H-P Geotech correspond to a recurrence' frequency of 25 years see Appendix ppendix Table 7, Rea Cassens, 1985). The historic events apparently did not result in major structural damage to buildings on the fan, but some damage resulted from deposition p on of mud and debris (Chen and Associates, 1985b). The previous hazard studies and Colorado Geological µ gl Survey reviews concluded that the potential flash flood and debris flow hazard at the To of P ti fill and elsewhere on the Pioneer Gulch fa n, including the existing development in the city, was severe enough to warrant hazard mitigation (Chen and Associates, 1984c and 1985b• and C b Geological Survey, 1985a and 1985b). Recommendations Colorado ;» dations for hazard mitigation concepts and designs were prepared (Chen and Associates, R 1985b). Review' the C ) of these recommendations b Y Colorado Geological Survey (1985b) concluded that the debris flow parameters in the Chen and Associates 1985b , report seem reasonable and conservative. The Colorado Geological Survey (1985b) recommended two QPtions planning office: (1) grant conditional approval of the to the proposal based on the proposed mitigation presented in the Chen report with a prohibition on occupancy has been completed and approved by a qualified p cY until mitigation _ q engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer, or (2) empanel a committee composed of representatives of the. city/county Planning office, the developer, and his contractors and consultants t Company and the concerned public, to � he Aspen Skiing P develop a plan defining the exact level of mitigation required, the responsible party, and the timetable to accomplish the work . k. The previous debris flow hazard studies and the Colorado Geological review have pointed out that it is desirable to incorporate debris � � Survey s flow hazard mitigation for the Top of Mill into a city-wide mitigation plan. The city-wide potential flash floods and debris flow hazards for the � plan would mitigate existing development on the entire Pioneer Gulch fan as well as the Grand Aspen and To of Mill sites . s. Conclusions and Recommendations: Based on review of the r experience, we have reached the following- collusion previous studies and our sion and recommendations pertaining to � debris flow hazards for the Grand Aspen and Top of No sites. • Both sites are in potential flash flood and debris flow hazard areas. H-P Geatech In 'ti non should be considered in pr j'tc,� planning Mla and design at both the g Top of Mill and Grand Aspen sites. The hazard s are more severe at the Top of Mill than at the Grand Aspen site because the Top of Mill is closer to the fan head. It is not possibl e to calculate a statistical recurrence frequency for the flow hazard as is commonly done in traditional storm water runoff debris crests that flash flooding and hazard analysis. The data reviewed suggests processes which have occurred associated debris flows are active geologic �rea• They appear to have before and after settlement of . P eater than 100 years. recurrence frequencies in the range of5 to greater Because debris flows are started by intense thunder storm precipitation P nor ra id melting of a heavy snowpack, it is reasonable to assume that arm debris flows will occur less frequently than small debris flows. site -specific debris flow mitigation plans should be developed for both p sites. The previous debris flow mit:gation concepts and des gn recommendations should be reviewed and up -dated if nece ary. Debris flow mitigation should be coordinated with the storm water management plan for the two sites. It is desira ble to look at the possibility of including debris flow hazard mitigation and storm water management for the two sites into a city-wide mitigation plan. • If a city-wide debris flow and storm water management plan is not possible, then debr is flow mitigation for the Top of Mill and Grand Aspen sites will likely require flood proofing and direct structural reinforcement of the buildings. • Flood roofing and structural reinforcement will not prevent some ble property P damage due do deposition of mud and debris, but it should b la protect the buildings against severe structural damage and provide structural reasonable level of safety for the building occupants: Direct of the buildings protection will involve some constraints. on the architecture and site grading. LANDSLIDES Summary of Review: In June of 1984 slope movements which resulted in ground surface H-P Geotech -9- cracking were noted in th ,, r• tivphe ski run area on As en �,c. p ., Mountain upslope of the redevelopment area. In 1984 and 1985 the landslide was studied as art of a geotechnical studies for the To of Mill Project. P he general . P � ct. Findings of the 1984 and 1985 studies were presented in two reports,(Chen and Associates 1985a and 1985b . The for the Aspen Mountain P.U.D. Project ) two studies � t were paid partially by the Aspen Skiing Company. Three exploratory borings- were drilled in the Straw ile` are a ea and piezometers, inclinometers, and surface survey monuments were installed. The se instruments were monitored from December 19,84 -through July 1985. Results are summarized in the Chen and Associates report (1985b): , ;The general findings of the 1984-19 _, 85 Strawpile slope study were: , • Slope movements ,observed in 1984 and 1985 occurred at 28 and 62 feet below the slope surfacer depths between • The slope movement rates increased in the sprung and the total maximum displacement forthe seven month monitoring period .was about 1 foot. Limit equilibrium 'stability analysis indicated safety factors between 1. and 1.09 when the spring of 1985 ground water conditionsel were modeled. • The long-term behavior of the slope movements is difficult to Considering the slope movement rates observed in 1984-1985 predict. monitoring period, it does 'not .appear that the movements present an immediate t to the Top of Millsite. threat Remedial actions to improve slope stability were recommended. These actions included: - Regrading the upper part of the slope - Control of surface drainage - Test drain program to evaluate if horizontal drains are feasible Reduce snow making in the area u -Remove, snow in the spring The Colorado Geological purvey (1985b),review of the 1994-1985 st udy concluded the that if the recommended mitigation ;actions r cat proposed at that time were implemented, the risk of potentially catastrophic landslide failure, and the resultant hazard could be substantially reduced. The Colorado Geological Survey19 two options to the planning office for ( 85b) recommended proceeding with the Top of Mill project: (1) grant -10- on d conditional the ,rope, m approval oitigation found in the Chen f t.�je proposal baseti ., approved ' 'ion. on occupancy until mitigation _��� been completed and a p report with a prohibition. and geotechnical engirleer, or (2) empanel a committee by a qualified engineering geologist �; _�:.� � composed of representatives of the ci /county plaming office, the developer and his d the concerned public, to Aspen Skiing Compaay,,,al? contractors . and. consultants, the Asp l ' e exact level of mitigation required, the responsible party, and develop a plan defining � the .. ,- , , , � . hs h the the timetable to accompwork. In addition, they also recommended monitoring the ' onuments on a regular basis. landslide movement m the Aspen Mountain P.U.D. the submission of the 1984-1985 study, P Following , o further action on de�velpping..the Top of Mill site. Starting in Project apparently took n ile slope • Q C®inpany undertook additional studies of the Strawp P Ma 1987, the Aspen Suing. y ile slope and they have been monitoring the slope since that time. In addition to the Strawp P movements, we know oP f other slope movements on Aspen Mountain in the Roch and run The skiing company a.nd.cQ mty. are aware of these movements. Spring Pitch ski ru . feted some work to improve the stability in the Roch Run The strung company has completed , ,. and Strawpile areas in the fall of 1995. Conclusions and Recommendations: Slope movements which increase in rate during the spring snowpack are known to be present on Aspen Mountain upslope of the melt project area. Long-term movement ent monitoring at Strawpile has been done between 1987 As -pen Skiing Company rk to improve slope and 1995. The Asp has also done some wo owever, most of the remedial actions recommended -in 1995 stability during this period. H roached to for Strawp ile have not been implemented. The skiing company should be ap p are vv�l�Q tO cooperate by making available the information they have detem-dne if they developed over the years to the redevelopment project. ROCKFALL Rockfall hazards were no j discussed.41, the previous studies. We are aware of a potential rockfall source area Ln mine dui�ip M.aterial in a road cut along the summer road wentproject.The county is xe tare of this condition and in upslope of the redevelop . • n Skim Company], 'temporary concrete barriers were placed conjunction with the Asp e g H-P Geoteeh along the road last spring. It is our understanding that a 'rocs ffll barrier- engineering company has been contacted to d�esrgn and construct a permanent cable fence barrier for the site which may be instafi :. `next'spring when the site is accessible. IT CONSTRUCTION-RELA:T 6SLOPE-INSTAB, LITY We do not anticipate major problems with on --site construction -related slope instability for the proposed constriction at either"the Gravid Aspen or Top of Mill sites, if f the grading is properly designed and extensive grading'is not done on the steeper slopes. For preliminary planning, the -grading recommendation`s presented in the previous geotechnical report for the Topi of 1VIi11 site can be used (Chen and Associates, 1984c). Site -specific grading recommendations should be developedas part of geotechnical studies at both redevelopment sites EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS The project site could experience moderately strong earthquake -related ground shaking of Modified Mercalli Intensity VI during a reasonable service life for the two developments, but the probability for stronger ground shaking is low. 'Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. All occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking' The"region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on our current understanding of the earthquake hazard in this part _of Colorado, we see no reason to increase "the commonly' accepted seismic risk zone for the area. LEWrATIONS This review has been pfepared according to generally accepted geologic and geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area, at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed`or implied."°tlie'conclusions and recommendations ,,_' .-.. submitted in this report are based upon review'of previous studies provided to us by the H-P Geot=h -12- client and our These st ,,&3ppv�iewe _udie d are about 10 years old, address a different eies n c ncepra6'ef- �t do tnot�c V 1�fed`ffie currently proposed i�M redevelopment projects. ,\This repoa, has been repgqd forthe exclusive use by our client for preliminary- eValfttion acid which require additional study. Additional site specific studies should to -address the geotechnical and geologic aspects of the'-two,sitdS40tzthe ptoposed,,,aia- _)spe cific building plans. 'q Respectfully Submitted.,E'l C1 0 1 HEPWORTH-PA)MLAK,QEOTECHNICAL,. INC. XQ "T 11C, Ralph G. Mock Engineering Geologist,,. v Reviewed By: 2 z, Steven L. Pawlak, PA� I 1� A 1, UF C_ RGM/krnk AEA 11_.. . .. ... Aspen Mountain PUD Project, 1995a, Preliminary PUD and Subdivision Submission, Phase Titilo -Section 4 - Storm Drainage: Prepared for the City of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado (T J anuary., 12% 9-5). '._ .. _' f " 4" ", A P Aspen Mountain PUD Project, f 9 9 oi&id--h-1 Ark Aded GA11P Submission - The Lodge: Prepared for the City .,of Asp Aspen �n, Colorado (February 28, 1985). ,, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, qdtit?k3 A'85-6: (April 2 1985) Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissiop,_,19,85b, Resolution .V 81 (April 2, 1985) 5-7: Bryant, B. 19 7 1, Geo logy MO;Pfth A fe'l; O71uaara?,kk, 'Akin County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map193J. H-P CJ(*t=h -13- B. 1979, Geo 15-�inut Q, zidiliingk,'-Pitkin and Gunnison Counties, Co1orqdq-,--,J .,q._,.Qreqlogical fes�jp, Paper 1073. 41' -1 M' bside F" Chen and Associates,, 1§8 tL ou nce lk=d�d' luation"'Pr6posed Aspen . Mountain Lodge Pro, A seen, , Colorado.: , Prepay d f(--,r Roberts Calaway Corporation, AsPqqJ"olorado Gob No. 26154B, May 15, 1984). Chen and Associates Top of Mill Development, Aspen Mountain Lodge Project, Aspen, Colorado: Prepared for Commerce Realty Corporation, San Antonio, Texas (Job No. 4 16' ) 84, October 31, 1984). Chen and Associates, 19 84c, Geolokic- and G e 64e6hn'ic"d i'F'valuation, Debris Flow Study, Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development, Top of ,To Complex, Aspen, Colorado: Prepared for Cormnerce Realty'C. 0'i-PC-rafio'4,.San Antonio, Texas (Job No. 4 392 84, November 14, 1984). Chen and Associates, 1985a, Preliminary Report,- Geozechsfical Study of 1984 Landslide above the Top of 111fill Condominiums add Asr pop -Alfo, untain Lodge Sites, Strawpile Run, Aspen Mountain, Aspen, Colorado: Prepared for Commerce Realty Corporation, San Antonio, Texas (Job No 4 ' )'8,5 84., January 4, 1985). Chen and Associates, 1985b, Dehris.Flaiw and Landslide Investigations, Top ofiWill Site, Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Dev elopmebt,'As0en, Colorado - Volumes I and IT Prepared for Aspen Mountain PUD 9Pr 1 I.Aaspen, Colorado (Job No. 4 385 84, September 20, 1985).. Colorado Geological Survey, -1985,q,-AT,,en.Mountain Lodge Residential GMP: Prepared an for Aspen/PitkinPI nmig' ff�cel Aspen Colorado '(PI-85-0003, bj/JLH-85-018, March 8, 1985). Colorado Geological Survey, 19851a.Review of Debrq.*F1ow'dnd Landslide Investigations Top ofMill Site: Prepared for Aspen/Pitldri-Pt .L.Iiig' Office, Aspen Colorado (PI-85-0003,, L 37.86-039, November. 27, 1985). Ui Debris KowRouting- KXBNA, 1986, Prel.ittiina'ry'-.E�dlud-tion"'ofDdb'-'Through the Top of Mill Site: Prepared for Aspen Mountain Lode, Project, Aspen, Colorado (February 20, 1986). Porter, S.C., Late, Wisconsin ,Mo, u, n- ta'-i n Gla"ci aft on J n the jeste rn, United States, in Late- Quaternar FF virpnments of the United States; Wright, H-E, editor: University of V Minneapolis Nfinneso a, H-P Ckotech I -14- Cassens and Associates, 1985, Aspen Mountain Z,Q ,.7VO—South Galena Street, Top of Mill, anal Ute-Ct Ttac,e, Stofmif Water Drainage Report (.lanuary 9, 1985). ..: P a '1L✓S — 1 t.st � I � y-� , - �— j _ s G=otech t smlj� I d U- ------ ----- z 5 CL z w Q- 0 LU a LU I-- cn • uj us < (L 0 o (a _j COL z w 0- 0 cr. (J (L w W co 13NV INS NIVIN(IOUY N:3dSV m